Talk:OpenDocument/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Inconsistent spelling of formulæ

yup —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.209.139 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

On Portal:Free software, OpenDocument is currently the selected article

(2007-05-20) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was Free Java implementations. Gronky 12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The selected article box has been updated again, OpenDocuments has been superceded by ZFS. Gronky 12:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardization, again

Hello,

it has been questioned whether OpenDocument Standardization is notable. I think it undoubtably is, and have removed the "importance" tag. However, it might be good to once again verify OpenDocument Standardization against OpenDocument and see whether they are in sync, and whether some content is currently duplicated. The OpenDocument article is so long that it is certainly OK to retain a separate article on standardization; but maybe the content can be condensed somewhat and then integrated into OpenDocument. This should be decided by the experts. --B. Wolterding 08:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't really that long, it just appears that way because of the inevitable hijacking which occurs whenever an article is permitted to have a Criticism section. There's no reason the two can't be folded into each other, neither is particularly high-quality right now. For now I've collapsed the subheaders on the offending section, which makes this article a little more hospitable to a merge. Chris Cunningham 09:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing the subheaders probably was a good idea allthough the readability has suffered a lot now. Mayby bulleting simular to the OOXML article critisism section would be better. The whole standardization section is overly long anyways without adding much information that is really usefull. Spending a whole article on that seems just plain boring but I can't be bothered to look up that article to check hAl 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Roadmap

Allthough the article suggest that ODF completing the standard in version 1.2 in an accelerated schedule there seems little evidence of that actually happening. At the current rate a final 1.2 version more likely at the end of the year or start of next year than in an accelerated schedule which would put it wel before oktober. So it even seems unsure whether version 1.2 will in the ISO version during 2008 even, as atm the 1.1 version isn't even an ISO version yet and the 1.2 version lagging more than a year behind that one. Is there any more up to date roadmap to put in the article ? hAl 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'd noticed as well - I've not found an updated scheduled anywhere. 195.10.54.12 13:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no rush: Format Standards Committee "Grinds To a Halt"--Hhielscher (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't Abiword, Gnumeric, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, etc mentioned?

All of them support ODF, yet only KOffice, OO.org/StarOffice are mentioned. According to this [[1]], several other word processors also support ODF. GNOME office is a particularly prominent app.AnyPhish02 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists of applications which use OpenDocument Format have been hived off to a separate article: OpenDocument software. WLD^talk|edits 13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Abiword and Gnumeric only implement import- and export-filters while OpenDocument is not there native format. Also abiword, gnumeric and google didn't participate last few years in the Oasis TC like KOffice did to create and extend the specs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.0.85 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

New sections

Could we get a section on the history of the format. It seems similar to OpenOffice.org 1.0 files and it'd be good to see whether those in turn were the file format from StarDivision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.160.118.227 (talk) 11:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

www.opendocumentfellowship.org ?

I am unable to access opendocumentfellowship.org. Is this just me/now, or is the site no longer accessible? (If the latter, then the links should be removed/updated) --RealGrouchy 04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

JUst checked - it is accessible now. I had problems accessing it yesterday too. WLD^talk|edits 22:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They've moved to http://www.opendocumentfellowship.com/

historical names

Before the OpenDocument format was called "OpenDocument," it was called (formally or informally):

"StarOffice XML [File Format]" or "Star Office XML" (October 14, 2000) [2]
"Open Office XML" (till January 30, 2005, this article was named as such; see Open_Office_XML history)
"OpenOffice.org XML [File Format]" [3] (December 2002)

There is presently quite a bit of confusion about the names "Open Office XML" and "Office Open XML" in the mainstream press (Google News: "open office xml") and blogosphere (Google Blog Search), substantially diluting the "Open Office" brand. I think it would be instructive for this article to treat this history, and for Office Open XML to note in its "distinguish" tag that "Open Office XML" is not the same as "Office Open XML." I'm only proposing this change here, instead of "being bold" about it, because User:HAl feels strongly (see Talk:Office Open XML#"distinguish" template, redux) that such a contribution to this article would be unwelcome — he believes the OpenDocument community is intentionally closeting its heritage (correct me if I'm wrong, Hal). —Fleminra 22:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Along these same lines, article reads in part "the standard was developed by the Open Office XML technical committee of the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) consortium". I propose this be changed to "the standard was developed by the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) technical committee of the ...". Long name, but that's the name currently in use on OASIS' website: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office (already referenced as an external link). While using the past tense and 'Open Office XML..." would be accurate, the committee name has changed. Better to not perpetuate confusion when at all possible. Since there's strong opinions about this issue, I also request opinions on this before I change it. ChrisBrown (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support from Microsoft Office 2007

This is a quote from the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2007> article, which claims that:

"Microsoft backs an open-source effort to support OpenDocument in Office 2007, as well as earlier versions, and also through a converter add-in for other programs, which works by having third-party programs call a command-line utility. As of yet, the project only supports conversions between OpenDocument Text and Office Open XML Word documents."

This is cited to [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.157.145 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of page should be "Open Document Format"

Just like the page describing PDF (Portable Document Format), this page (describing ODF) should actually be moved (renamed) to "Open Document Format" --Jarl Friis 19:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--- Do we need a vote for this? Louie (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. (see also: Portable Document Format) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.219.219 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OASIS Membership Rules

HAl has made a recent change suggesting that some members of the ODF TC have more rights than others. This is deceptive. Every member of the ODF TC has equal rights, but only those who regularly attend meetings are considered voting members. This is according to OASIS policy (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#s2.4) and is the same for every OASIS TC. Voting rights are lost when a member misses two consecutive meetings, and are automatically regained upon attendence at two consecutive meetings. This rule is applied impartially. In fact, I went on a vacation in October and lost voting rights and just regained them last week. So it is probably not useful to attempt to enumerate the exact voting membership in this article, since it changes on a weekly basis.

RCWeir 14:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so that how is it is determined. In that case would it be more accurate to state that during the last two years the Sun and IBM have always had a voting majority in the OASIS TC ? hAl 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You would need to run the numbers on that based on the record of meeting minutes. You could probably also show that (Sun + independent members) had the majority, or that (IBM + independent members) had the majority. No single company dominates (has an outright majority) of voting members. To say that (Sun + IBM) has the majority, without reference to a specific vote, is mere speculation. There are any number of combinations of voting blocs that would give a "ruling coalition". But in practice it is not so neat. For example, we've had votes where not all IBM members voted the same way.

In any case, we shouldn't equate voting membership with active participation. For example, we many people working in the formula, metadata and accesibility subcommittees. Very few of them attend the TC calls. In fact, one of the main purposes for creating the subcommittees was to allow active work to progress in side threads. The result is that most progress on ODF 1.2 occurs in the subcommittees, and the TC calls focus on housekeeping tasks and miscellaneous proposals. RCWeir 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Still the control of the TC has been behind a lot of the recent controversy on ODF lately. Looking up the voting members show very much that Sun and IBM have nearly all voting members and also by far each have the most members in the TC. So it would seem those are the two parties that have control of the ODF development. hAl 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Again the point is that you could say exactly the same thing about other combinations of members that add up to more than 50%. For example, I could replace your statement with, "Looking up the voting members show very much that IBM and independent members have a majority of the all voting members. So it would seem those are the two parties that have control of the ODF development" and it would be equally true. If you wanted to show something you would need to show that Sun + IBM vote regulary together as a bloc, while independent members as a bloc voted another way. But a look at the record does not indicate this. For one thing, note that the ODF TC has had only two formal ballots in 2007. One was concerning the OpenDocument Foundation's "list proposal" A counter-proposal by KOffice was accepted over the Foundation's proposal in a 5-2 vote. The other vote is underway right now, a vote to make me Co-Chair of the ODF TC. The fact is that the TC does most of its work by consensus, and formal votes occur only rarely, either when required by OASIS rules, or when, in the absence of consensus, a member requests a vote for the record. So, it is hard to claim that anyone has "control" based on arbitrary and hypothetical combinations of voting members when the single divided vote we've had contradicts your theory. RCWeir 19:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting definite articles right

Applications can support ODF, and they can support the OpenDocument format, and they can support OpenDocument Format. (Note capitalisation)

They cannot support the OpenDocument Format. That would be like me writing my webpage in the HTML. --Gronky (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

Hi,

Link to daVinci plug-ins is dead (section Criticism).

Thanks for this good article :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.255.60.145 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of SVG graphics in ODF?

Office_Open_XML#DrawingML says that ODF uses a subset of SVG graphics. Is this correct? --HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, read http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/01/Embrace-and-extend---SVG-revisited.aspx hAl (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Office_Open_XML#Length_of_the_specification_is_6000_pages_-_Comments_missing_... says that ODF has three graphics formats? What are these? --HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it refers to the 3 different namespace that Opendocument is using, drawing, drawing 3D and SVG-compatible. The SVG-compatible namespace only contains 9 elements... , the draw and drawing 3D namespaces are not standard but are almost copies of OpenOffice specific namespaces. hAl (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox file format

What about implementing Infobox file format emplate like OOXML does?--Kozuch (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OpenOffice / ODF

Î reverted a text that changed the meaning of the source above in the standardization section. The source ([5]) said in substance that So I suggest that ODF has a far better validation record than HTML and the web have, and that is an encouraging statement. In any case, Alex Brown's dire pronouncements on ODF validity have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.. I'm not against writing something about 1.0 and 1.1 versions of ODF, but as said before, the add completely changed the meaning of the source. Hervegirod (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You reverted a text that stated OpenOffice 2.4 uses ODF 1.1 (which is not ISO ODF v1.0) while the cited source stated: the wrong version of the ODF schema since OpenOffice 2.4.0's output is clearly declared as ODF 1.1. Also the cited source stated that html files on the web validate in only 0.7 % of the cases. Comparing with that is actually terrible. It suggest that OpenDocument document also also could have a very low validation rate. That Rob Weir uses that comparison is showing he isn't full of confidence on ODF files actually validating very often. there is also further evidence that previously created documents in OOo v2.0-v2.3 are also non validating files in this article Conformance of ODF-documents. hAl (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I think this section is weak because of the use of vague language, especially when I see words like "compliant", "support" or "uses" thrown around. What does "compliant" mean? Nothing, formally. The only words that mean something formally are "conformant" and "valid". These are the terms of art in ISO standards and with XML. You can read the conformance part in section 1.5 of the ODF standard. There are three things that can conform to the ODF standard: documents, applications that read documents, and applications that write documents. Validity is a small part of conformance, a specific XML concept, an important concept, but only a small part of conformance. So from an application standpoint, the fact that an application writes out ODF 1.1, does not prove that it does not conform to the ISO/IEC 26300 standard. For example, an application could be capable of reading ODF 1.0 documents, but write out new documents in ODF 1.1 format. That would still qualify (if all other conformance requirements are met) as a conformant ODF 1.0 application. I suggest OpenOffice 2.4.0 falls into that category. 24.62.109.81 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Implementations

There are no indications in the article of which version of the standard are supported and implemented completely and consistently by which software offerings. As far as I am aware, OpenOffice supports one version of the OASIS specification but not the ISO standard. The Microsoft Office 2007 plug-in for ODF supports the ISO standard but not the OASIS specification, and so forth.

It would be valuable to have a table indicating which software supports which specification and which version thereof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.124.154 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointless criticism / OR

I removed the criticism about the fact that Sun patent promise applies only with Sun participation: The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement applies to any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications, or of any subsequent version of the format thereof only if Sun Microsystems participates in development of the subsequent standard version. This was re-added with the following justification: Sun might not participate in a future version which would render their covenant useless. This should not be in this section : First, the source is by Sun corp. itself, so it cannot be stated as a critic. Writing that it is a critic is a clear violation of WP:OR: If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Second (but my first argument itself should make the whole critic be removed): Nobody can promise anything on which they don't participate, which makes us going back to the first argument: it can not be listed as a critic. I don't want to be engaged in an edit war, so I will not remove it myself, but I engage who have added this to do it of his own will. Now if somebody can find a reliable source that takes this fact and state it as a critic, I'm fine with that, even if this would be a pointless critic. Hervegirod (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. It should not be in the critisism section and I removed it from there. hAl (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks !! Hervegirod (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sun's Patent Pledge

The recent addition of Sun's patent pledge as "criticism" seems strange to me, especially as the person who instigated the pledge in the first place. The pledge can only apply to things Sun has been involved in reviewing, so it is no surprise that Sun should state that Sun would not extend the pledge beyond the boundary of its involvement. Since future versions could be expected to build on earlier versions, and since earlier versions would continue to be covered by the pledge, this essentially means that Sun doesn't agree to hold blameless inclusion of new stuff in versions it's not involved in. It does not mean that in the case of Sun's non-involvement all protection is withdrawn, as the anonymous author seems to imply. Does anyone have any evidence to support the assertion this is a widely-held criticism - there is no attribution in the text. Webmink 12:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a troll. Although, if I were a troll, I'd say that, so I'm not sure that adds anything. I put it in because I had seen the criticism here: http://ooxmlhoaxes.blogspot.com/ - see the section titled "OOXML hoax 2: The standard is not really open". The issues raised there may be open to criticism, but I thought it worthwhile including. What's the rebuttal? WLD^talk|edits 13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The rebuttal is as above. The covenant is not terminated if Sun leaves the OASIS committee, but the covenant stops being extended to new additions. I'd be happy to re-word it but I gather Wikipedia doesn't like input from primary sources. Webmink 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The key point you make is "The covenant is not terminated if Sun leaves the OASIS committee, but the covenant stops being extended to new additions." - perhaps I'm just being dense, but I don't see that in Sun's Patent Statement. It says that Sun "will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification". That says nothing about later specs. Perhaps I'm just being over-suspicious, but it seems to me that Sun could enforce patents that it doesn't enforce against v1.0 against a later spec - e.g v3.17 or whatever. I'd prefer your interpretation, but my natural suspicion makes me think otherwise. I'm sure the wording has been subject to very careful legal approval. WLD^talk|edits 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem with legal documents - when discussed by non-specialists (I am bravely assuming that category includes you) it's easy to make assumptions that are wrong. We have each made interpretations that lead to different conclusions, and prima facie they are equally likely. The only thing that makes mine more likely than yours is that I was involved in the publication of the covenant and I asked the lawyers who wrote it exactly this question at the time of publication. Whatever you feel about this, however, I assert that the existing text is not NPOV and needs modification. Webmink 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to use that well-worn acronym, IANAL, so you are safe there. How best could the text be improved to reflect our two prima facie conclusions? Note that I'd be happy to link to something that explicitly supports your view, just as a link to "The Wraith"'s web log is at present. I'm not particularly happy at linking to a 'blog, but I've not found a better exposition of the position. As far as I'm concerned, I think as much valid criticism of ODF as possible should be included in the article as that can only help the cause of clarity. It's a bit of a Nietzschien approach - that which does not destroy ODF makes it stronger! WLD^talk|edits 13:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue was already worded in the last sentence of the licensing section. I'm not sure it warrants a separate place in the criticisms. I shows that ODF future version are as much Sun dependent as future OOXML version are MS dependent. It just shows that openness always has it's limits. hAl 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindenting) The more I think about it, the more I think it should be there. OOXML is criticized by many for not being 'open' and 'freely implementable' when the same criticisms can (and should) be levied against ODF. If Sun gets into severe business difficulties (and there are many precedents for large technology companies getting into business difficulties), then non-participation in producing a new version of ODF standards allows them to start using their intellectual property portfolio as a revenue generator - much like Unisys did with GIF and the Lempel-Ziv-Welch compression algorithm. A clear expression from Sun saying that they would not seek to enforce intellectual property rights on any 'technology' used in any ODF version (developed with their participation) in any future version (not developed with their participation) would help. For example, if ODF 1.0 used method 'foobar' patented by Sun, the current wording means that Sun can enforce rights in relation to 'foobar' in ODF 3.7 if Sun have not participated in 3.7's development. All they simply need to say is that any technology used in a version developed with the aid of Sun can be freely used in a later version not developed with the aid of Sun, but any new technologies in later versions not developed by Sun are susceptible to litigation. I think open, freely implementable standards are a good thing, but it looks like ODF may, possibly, not be as open as some people believe. I could be being overly cautious here. I wish it were possible to uninvent software patents and business method patents. WLD^talk|edits 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose that the Wikipedia article on the U.S. Constitution should have a criticism stating that there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that prevents a future Constitutional Convention from reintroducing slavery? This seems to be the logic here. There is a standard called ODF now and today, and this criticism does not seem to be about anything that is actually in ODF. You might as well complain that there is nothing that prevents a future version of ODF from forbidding the letter 'e' in text or font point sizes greater than 20, or dotted lines in presentations. In fact, maybe a future version of ODF will be turned into a recipe for cherry cheesecake. There are an infinite number of possible criticisms of unwritten future versions of ODF, and none of these criticisms can be refuted. But such unfounded speculations seem to belong more to a horoscope than an encyclopedia. I'd like to think that criticisms are based on some minimal threshold of plausibility, based on more than an unsubstantiated anonymous blog postings. RCWeir 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your view of the logic is skewed. It is quite simple: all Sun needs to say is that any of Sun's technology used in a version developed with the aid of Sun can be freely used in any later version not developed with the aid of Sun. That is not what Sun have said. It is quite interesting from a legal point of view, as the statement, in its current form, seems to work against a defense of laches being used by someone should Sun prosecute. Note: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice - it's just an area of interest for me. It is enough of an issue for Webmink to have taken this up with Sun's lawyers. Webmink was happy with the reply, but is unable to add it (it's probably not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense, anyway) - so I would content that it is a substantive issue. You have to look at what Sun have officially said, and a statement written with the explicit involvement of lawyers will have been very carefully crafted, as lawyers are experts in precise language. What commentators say they believe about Sun's intentions when the statement is made doesn't really help - you have to look at the actual text and see what meanings are compatible with what is written. Of course any future version of ODF could be turned into anything, but that is not the point, and irrelevant to the point I am making - that (a) Sun are unlikely to participate in all future versions of ODF and (b) any future version defined without the help of Sun cannot use Sun's technology, even if it has already been used in a previous version (dependent on lifetime limits on patents/copyright or other intellectual property used). It's the even if it has already been used in a previous version that is the kicker. I hope that is clear. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 08:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because ODF is mentioned as being an alternative for OOXML for even Microsoft. How could Microsoft commit to using a format where possible control of the future versions development is in the hands of a competitor with it's own Office suite. The same of course applies to OOXML where MS controls future development using it's intellectual property. This argument show that there can be very valid reasons for more than one format. hAl 12:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like original research. That doesn't belong here. Analysis in an anonymous blog posting of unknown expertise can hardly be considered reliable, especially when we have on-the-record public expert statements that say the ODF license is fine, for example: this review by the SFLC. So, on one hand, you have the General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation, and Professor of Law at Columbia, saying that the license is fine (interesting that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention this), and on the other hand you have an anonymous blogger called The Wraith who thinks there are problems. And which statement do you go with? The anonymous blogger, of course. But my understanding of Wikipedia policy is that this criticism should attributable to a reliable source, and I don't see that here. RCWeir 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, and perhaps I'm being particularly dense but having read the SFLC review, I don't believe it supports you to the extent that you say. The Licensing section of the article says "Key contributor Sun Microsystems made an irrevocable intellectual property covenant, providing all implementers with the guarantee that SUN will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OpenDocument specification." (My emphasis), but I can't see that being said in either

the Patent Statement [6], or
the SFLC review [7], or
the OASIS intellectual property rights policy [8] referenced in the SFLC review.

Sun's patent statement specifically references version 1.0 of the specification, "or [...] any subsequent version thereof [...] in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation [...]", and the OASIS intellectual property rights policy does not force licensing of subsequent versions - the "Continuing Licensing Obligation" applies only to the specification version developed with the aid of the contributing member. That is, if Sun withdraw from OASIS now, Version 1.0 of ODF will continue to be covered by Sun's Patent Statement. Nowhere is there stated to be an obligation to license patents used in v1.0 in subsequent versions. Read it yourself. I would love to be wrong. The SFLC review references back to Sun releasing the StarOffice source under the LGPL and says "The LGPL required Sun to license any patents covering ODF in a manner “consistent with the full freedom of use specified in [the LGPL].”". I'm not conversant enough with the LGPL to say whether or not patent licensing can be version dependent - i.e. Allowing Version 1.0 of foobar licensed under the LGPL to use patented software means that all subsequent versions of foobar licensed under the GPL can also use the patented software. It is by no means clear. And if you point out that OASIS requires a perpetual license, that's actually not relevant - it simply means that V1.0 of ODF is licensed in perpetuity, not that all subsequent versions of ODF are. Why did Sun specifically reference only ODF 1.0 when it would have been easy (and very clear) to add "and all subsequent versions."? I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to get one to conduct a review on this specific topic. It is, however, crucially important to businesses looking to use ODF in the long term. Why move from Microsoft controlled formats to what may potentially be Sun controlled formats? ODF 1.0 is safe, that much is clear, which is far, far better than nothing. I've said my piece, and if you have done, thank-you for reading. I really don't want to be labeled as a nut-job who is capable only of playing a one-note samba on this topic - I've got other things to do, and as RCWeir points out, this may well be construable as Original Research, so I'll just toddle off into the sunset. Cheerio. WLD^talk|edits 20:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is odd since I also haven't seen this anywhere else except on Wikipedia (paging Reliable Sources needed on this). Why would Sun need to donate unknown patents to an unknown process if they're not involved in it; is that unreasonable? Should their patents on unrelated things be a free for all? The wording of "If Sun does not participate, then the assurance not to seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation will not apply" makes it seem like a very valid threat, which contradicts the article itself! E.g., earlier, "Key contributor Sun Microsystems made an irrevocable intellectual property covenant, providing all implementers with the guarantee that Sun will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OpenDocument specification. This Statement is not an assurance that an OpenDocument Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party." I don't see how this is malicious as the criticism seems to be.AnyPhish02 08:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That is simple. It's because the people who are paid by Microsoft to make up false claims about their competitors say so. --192.82.104.3 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)