[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openoffice-discuss
Subject:    Re: [discuss] Open interfaces and OOo, was: Can someone explain
From:       Sander Vesik <Sander.Vesik () Sun ! COM>
Date:       2004-03-30 20:28:43
Message-ID: 4069D87B.8010106 () sun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 09:53:24 AM +0000, Sander Vesik (Sander.Vesik@Sun.COM) wrote:
> 
>>Chad Smith wrote:
>>
>>>http://theregister.com/content/4/36520.html
>>>
>>>As it relates to OpenOffice.org ?  (If it does).
>>
>>Nothing at all.
> 
> 
> May I ask why, and which parts were ignorant? Having control and being
> able to ask royalties on interfaces and formats doesn't sound so
> unrelated to OOo/OASIS to me (regardless of the intrinsic value of
> that particular article).
> 

<quote>

The doomsday scenario has several ifs, but the ramifications are worth 
exploring. The decision states that "to the extent that any of this 
interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the 
European Economic Area, Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable 
remuneration".

</quote>

But really, this is the case now and has always been - nothing changed. 
The comments on the 'IDL files' (they can't actually mean actual IDL 
files here) being under copyright is worse - header files and similar 
have always been under copyright, I don't know of a single example where 
such would not have been considered to be under copyright. But 
conversly, such copyright doesn't really affect somebody else's ability 
to write their own header files embodying the same interface.

If the ruling would have been the reverse it would essentially have been 
telling microsoft it could not charge for any kind of SDK. Something I 
think most people would find unreasonable.

> TIA,
> 	Marco Fioretti
> 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]