Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

[Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@OpenDocument.us>]

On May 8, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Alex Wang wrote:

> I tried to use the example of Java to explain what "balance" means. Sun
> kept some IPR of Java ten years ago, give up some of them today, it is
> the "balance". Yes, Sun want to create a market by Java, but I don't
> think this is the reason that you have very little sympathy for Sun. I
> respect Sun, J2EE is more popular than .NET, while Windows, IE, MS
> Office becomes the owner of the world.
>
> I was told "share everything", "free for everything"  ever since I was
> born. I am a Chinese, this is the Communist Party's education. This 
> kind
> of education still exists in North Korea, and now in OASIS. We treat 
> IPR
> in extremeness attitude, thus a commercial topic becomes a politics
> topic. I don't think it is a good manner.

With all due respect Alex:

1) you are comparing apples (programming language, VM, etc.) and 
oranges (standards)

2) Sun has opened up Java recently

So your argument isn't really supported by either logic or 
on-the-ground facts.

It's not surprising that many people who are a part of standards work 
are very suspicious of attaching restrictions to its use (building 
proprietary tools or applications based on those standards is an 
entirely different matter). You cannot talk about "balance" and "99%" 
when talking about standards, and to say as much is hardly "extremism"; 
it's the entire basis on which our internet-based information economy 
works. If XML and HTML were released under RAND, there would be no 
internet as we know it, nor would ODF exist.

Bruce