<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>GeekPAC &#187; groklaw</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/tag/groklaw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog</link>
	<description>Fight for Your Information Rights</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:51:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Groklaw: OOXML Fails to Get Majority Approval at BRM &#8211; Updated 3Xs</title>
		<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/02/groklaw-ooxml-fails-to-get-majority-approval-at-brm-updated-3xs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/02/groklaw-ooxml-fails-to-get-majority-approval-at-brm-updated-3xs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Groklaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Extra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[groklaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iso]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ooxml]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela jones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bytesfree.org/bfblog/index.php/2008/02/29/groklaw-ooxml-fails-to-get-majority-approval-at-brm-updated-3xs/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Andy Updegrove has the results in detail <a href="http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/
article.php?story=20080229055319727">here</a>, including a breakdown of the votes. Basically, <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/
27/Debate-on-OOXML-standard-continues_1.html">there were too many proposed changes</a> to be able to cover them in the BRM, so they tried a workaround, but the upshot is ... it's a mess. Oddly, despite the rules, Alex Brown, Updegrove reports, allowed non P countries to vote, but OOXML still couldn't get a majority of the delegations to back it at the BRM. Nor is it clear that allowing non P countries to vote is even legitimate.   Now it's the 30-day voting period, but Updegrove asks, if they never could discuss all the issues, which is the purpose of a BRM, what's the basis for a vote?  And with the vast majority either voting to abstain or even refusing to vote as a protest, I think one may conclude this proposal didn't belong on the fast track, and it isn't getting the kind of support you would have thought it might, given all the muscle that has gone into the push to get OOXML approved. <a href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/02/groklaw-ooxml-fails-to-get-majority-approval-at-brm-updated-3xs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Andy Updegrove has the results in detail <a href="http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/%3Cbr%3E%3C/a%3Earticle.php?story=20080229055319727">here</a>, including a breakdown of the votes. Basically, <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/%3Cbr%3E%3C/a%3E27/Debate-on-OOXML-standard-continues_1.html">there were too many proposed changes</a> to be able to cover them in the BRM, so they tried a workaround, but the upshot is &#8230; it&#8217;s a mess. Oddly, despite the rules, Alex Brown, Updegrove reports, allowed non P countries to vote, but OOXML still couldn&#8217;t get a majority of the delegations to back it at the BRM. Nor is it clear that allowing non P countries to vote is even legitimate.   Now it&#8217;s the 30-day voting period, but Updegrove asks, if they never could discuss all the issues, which is the purpose of a BRM, what&#8217;s the basis for a vote?  And with the vast majority either voting to abstain or even refusing to vote as a protest, I think one may conclude this proposal didn&#8217;t belong on the fast track, and it isn&#8217;t getting the kind of support you would have thought it might, given all the muscle that has gone into the push to get OOXML approved.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080229124919217" target="_blank">See full post at Groklaw.net </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2008/02/groklaw-ooxml-fails-to-get-majority-approval-at-brm-updated-3xs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Documentation -Updated 2Xs</title>
		<link>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2007/12/samba-team-receives-microsoft-protocol-documentation-updated-2xs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2007/12/samba-team-receives-microsoft-protocol-documentation-updated-2xs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Groklaw</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Extra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[groklaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pamela jones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bytesfree.org/bfblog/index.php/2007/12/20/samba-team-receives-microsoft-protocol-documentation-updated-2xs/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The <a href="http://www.protocolfreedom.org/">Protocol Freedom Information Foundation</a> has just signed an agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server products and to make them available to Samba and other Free Software projects.  Here's <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/podcasts/linux/2007/122007-linuxcast.html">a podcast</a> where Samba's Jeremy Allison explains the news to Don Marti of LinuxWorld.<P>No. This isn't a bit like the Novell-Microsoft agreements. This is for access to Microsoft's protocols, as ordered by the EU Commission and agreed to by Microsoft.  It's a good thing, in my opinion, and the Samba guys worked really hard to make this as good as it gets.  Note that it's a copyright agreement, with no per-copy royalties, not a patent licensing, but there's a list of patents.  Samba has not agreed to license them. Rather it will avoid them, and with a list of them provided by Microsoft, they can and so can you.  There is no acknowledgment of them by Samba, no money paid for them, nothing. This is what Novell and others could have done, and thanks to Samba, everyone is a bit freer today.<P> Here's the press release, and two articles that explain a bit about how it came to be and what the agreement contains, both written by Andrew Tridgell, the creator of Samba. And here is <a href="http://www.protocolfreedom.org/
PFIF_agreement.pdf">the agreement</a> [PDF] itself.  Note that a Delaware corporation was formed for the purpose, The Protocol Freedom Information Foundation, and it is the licensee.  So it can provide "detailed documentation on Microsoft protocols to developers in the free software community under non-disclosure terms, while still allowing for the development of free software under open licenses, including the GNU General Public License".  That means, as Tridgell puts it, "Writing code which interoperates with Microsoft operating systems just got a lot easier."  First, the press release, then <a href="http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html">the history</a>, then the <a href="http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.html">contents of the agreement</a> explained from Tridge's perspective, how he understands the agreement. And he even provides a <a href="http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/WSPP_redline.pdf">redline</a> version [PDF], so you can see the original agreement Microsoft proposed and all the changes that ensued. <P> <b> Update:</b> There's a Microsoft reaction in this Reuters article, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/
rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSL207546720071220?sp=true">Microsoft signs rare open-source deal, under EU orders</a>. They are "pleased".<P>
<b> Update 2:</b> Carlo Piana, one of the attorneys involved on the Samba side, has now <a href="http://www.piana.eu/?q=en/samba_pfif">commented on  the agreement</a> on his blog, Law is Freedom, explaining it, and providing this information: "The total number of pages of which the documentation is made is 14820." <a href="http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2007/12/samba-team-receives-microsoft-protocol-documentation-updated-2xs/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.protocolfreedom.org/">Protocol Freedom Information Foundation</a> has just signed an agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server products and to make them available to Samba and other Free Software projects.  Here&#8217;s <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/podcasts/linux/2007/122007-linuxcast.html">a podcast</a> where Samba&#8217;s Jeremy Allison explains the news to Don Marti of LinuxWorld.</p>
<p>No. This isn&#8217;t a bit like the Novell-Microsoft agreements. This is for access to Microsoft&#8217;s protocols, as ordered by the EU Commission and agreed to by Microsoft.  It&#8217;s a good thing, in my opinion, and the Samba guys worked really hard to make this as good as it gets.  Note that it&#8217;s a copyright agreement, with no per-copy royalties, not a patent licensing, but there&#8217;s a list of patents.  Samba has not agreed to license them. Rather it will avoid them, and with a list of them provided by Microsoft, they can and so can you.  There is no acknowledgment of them by Samba, no money paid for them, nothing. This is what Novell and others could have done, and thanks to Samba, everyone is a bit freer today.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071220124013919" target="_blank">[click for more]</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.geek-pac.org/blog/2007/12/samba-team-receives-microsoft-protocol-documentation-updated-2xs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
