[News] Leaked ISO Document Reveals Crooked ISO Amid MS OOXML Corruptions

0 vue
Accéder directement au premier message non lu

Roy Schestowitz

non lue,
8 juil. 2008, 08:54:5008/07/2008
à
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/IEC_central_office_on_the_OOXML_fast_trac_process_2007

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Neue-Zweifel-am-Schnellverfahren-zur-ISO-Normierung-von-Microsofts-OOXML--/meldung/110546

Heise Reports ISO Report on Fast Track is on Wikileaks

[PJ: The report is in German, and you must draw your own conclusions. They
provide a link to the document on Wikileaks, which is in English, and they say
the report "does not directly refer to that particular fast track process.
Rather it is a response to a question which had been asked at a previous
meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1's Special Working Group on the Directives about the
fast-track process in relation to amendments to standards." The conclusion?
That fast tracking should only be for standards "which do not need changes".
The origin of the document is "IEC Central Office", and is guessed to be
Gabriel Barta. The significance is that ISO publicly has stated how
wonderfully the OOXML Fast Track process worked. It seems someone disagrees.]

Of course, Microsoft hired the ECMA shills to rewrite the rules. What a
first-class disaster. Microsoft corrupt everything it touches.


Recent:

ISO process slammed

,----[ Quote ]
| Rob Weir, co-chairman of the OASIS Open Document Format (ODF) technical
| committee, says the blatant committee backing around the world to have the
| standard ratified was disconcerting. He says in several countries, countries
| voted yes at the last minute and were “heard of no more. It makes a mockery
| of the system.”
`----

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/software/2008/0806131046.asp?O=FPTOP&S=Legal%20View&A=LEG


Document standards row heats up

,----[ Quote ]
| Standards body the Open Document Format (ODF) Alliance closed ranks with the
| European Commission (EC) against Microsoft today, issuing a statement
| applauding the commission's vociferous endorsement of the ODF standard in an
| effort to avoid vendor lock-in on document formats.
`----

http://www.computing.co.uk/computing/news/2218954/odf-alliance-applauds-ec-stance


Weeks ago:

SCO vs. Linux – mixed reactions to Novell Unix copyright verdict

,----[ Quote ]
| From hackers to financial analysts, the question of what happens next is
| occupying the minds of many in the IT industry – not all of them as
| well-informed as Pamela Jones, the good fairy behind Groklaw, a website which
| follows such cases. She has told Infoworld that Microsoft will be the next
|                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| SCO Group; the company has been loudly rattling its patent sabres, claiming
| ^^^^^^^^^
| earlier this year that Linux violated mote than 235 Microsoft patents.
| Whether Microsoft goes beyond mere sabre rattling and whether SCO manages
| anything more than a last gasp is also a question of how you evaluate the
| course of court proceedings so far.
`----

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/features/SCO-vs-Linux-mixed-reactions-to-Novell-Unix-copyright-verdict--/110819

Homer

non lue,
8 juil. 2008, 07:48:1008/07/2008
à
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:

> http://wikileaks.org/wiki/IEC_central_office_on_the_OOXML_fast_trac_process_2007
[...]
> [PJ: [...] The conclusion? That fast tracking should only be for

> standards "which do not need changes". The origin of the document is
> "IEC Central Office", and is guessed to be Gabriel Barta.

Interesting, although I don't think we needed Gabriel Barta to confirm
what was blatantly obvious. ISO was essentially bought and corrupted by
Microsoft.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
12:47:51 up 200 days, 9:23, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.24, 0.13

DFS

non lue,
8 juil. 2008, 08:53:3708/07/2008
à
Homer wrote:

> ISO was essentially bought and corrupted by Microsoft.


Whenever something doesn't go the way Roy Homer Kent wants it, the spoiled
brat immediately whines 'corrupt' and 'evil'.

Meanwhile:

[H]omer: Microsoft is an evil scam. The Gates Foundation invested in the
shares of oil companies just to make money. I love open source - closed
source and "intellectual property" is evil.

DFS: Where were you in 2005?

[H]omer: being paid well to work on proprietary software for an oil drilling
firm that exploited the Nigerian land and people.

DFS: But doesn't that makes you just as 'corrupt' as them?

[H]omer: It's different when it's me.

DFS: How is it different?

[H]omer: It just is. <slinks away like a dirty, beady-eyed skunk>

Moshe Goldfarb.

non lue,
8 juil. 2008, 09:41:1508/07/2008
à

The Linux *advocates* in COLA are hypocrites.
Nothing more.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Rex Ballard

non lue,
9 juil. 2008, 03:19:0609/07/2008
à
On Jul 8, 2:48 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
> >http://wikileaks.org/wiki/IEC_central_office_on_the_OOXML_fast_trac_p...

> [...]
> > [PJ: [...] The conclusion? That fast tracking should only be for
> > standards "which do not need changes". The origin of the document is
> > "IEC Central Office", and is guessed to be Gabriel Barta.
>
> Interesting, although I don't think we needed Gabriel Barta to confirm
> what was blatantly obvious. ISO was essentially bought and corrupted by
> Microsoft.

This wouldn't be the first time that the ISO was bought and sold like
a $3 hooker. Dig into the OSI specifications, especially the versions
circulating in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and you can easily see
the work of shills working for IBM, DEC, HP (Apollo), AT&T, IT&T,
Xerox, and several X.25 switch vendors.

The result was a specification that spanned about 65,000 pages, cost
about $150,000 per reader, and was impossible to implement.
Furthermore, the extensions, subsets, supersets, and options pretty
much assured that there would be no interoperability.

As a result, the ARPA/NSF RFC standards, which were freely published,
and were required to be so clear and complete that each RFC could be
implemented by an undergraduate college student, resulted in a set of
standards that became what we now know as the Internet. It was based
on the ARPA Internet, but included the directory services, LDAP,
security, encryption, and other key standards required to handle a
huge network that eventually grew to over 2 billion users.

The IETF did adopt some good ideas from OSI, including LDAP,
tunneling, and Mime types, as well as improvements in e-mail routing,
but even then, the specifications were so clear and concise, that they
could be implemented by undergraduates, eliminating the threat of
patents that would "lock up" the internet, allowing one party to work
against the best interests of the whole community.

One of the key factors in the success of the Internet, was the
availability of Open Source implementations of the protocols and
drivers. BSD Sockets, Lynx, Viola, Mosaic, Mozilla, and Firefox, for
example, made it possible to implement working solutions we now know
as "The Web" and deploy it to millions of Windows 3.1 machines, as
well as Linux workstations, back when Bill Gates and Microsoft were
saying that the Internet would never be a viable network. For almost
2 years, Gates and Windows were under direct threat, because Linux,
Java, and low priced Unix Workstation options, as well as Warp had
already implemented robust internet support, much of which didn't make
it into Windows until Windows XP (and much of which is still missing
in Windows).

Even when the Internet did become established, Microsoft attempted to
pervert and corrupt these standards. They tried to corrupt HTML by
introducing VBScript and ActiveX controls. The result was a plethora
of viruses, worms, and malware that often adversely affected corporate
networks for weeks, even months, because the Windows PCs spread them
so quickly using these corrupted standards.

Today, Microsoft is trying to do the same thing with OpenXML,
embedding "oleObjectx.bin" objects into zipped documents, making it a
trivial matter for hackers to embed malware in OpenXML documents and
spread them to carefully qualified targets. These documents, when
read, or even previewed, to create, open, read, write, execute, and/or
delete any file on the hard drive, to modify the registry, and to send
or receive content from almost anywhere on the internet that can be
accessed by the user, including VPNs, protected networks, and secured
corporate networks.

The user must trust that proprietary code, known only by a hand-full
of people at Microsoft, hasn't opened up other back-doors that are
also unknown. Even the so-called "trusted" applications and OLE
objects can't really be trusted, but they will get circulated to
Banks, insurance companies, politicians, corporate executives, and
other key leaders, giving Microsoft executives direct access to
information that even the FBI, NSA, and DHS can't get, with the
ability to publish what it finds, and trigger scandals,
investigations, and even corporate collapse of any who oppose the
interests of Microsoft.

Meanwhile, Open Document format, which is much more robustly
documented, and much more secure, has been gaining the support of
major players including numerous government agencies, companies like
IBM, and key players all over the world.

Ironically, the opinion has come full circle. In 1994, people assumed
that only high-priced software like Word, Excel, and PowerPoint could
be trusted, and that Open Source software couldn't be trusted. Today,
most network administrators are for more concerned about the
consequences of proprietary shareware, proprietary 3rd party software,
and even Microsoft software, because they have discovered that these
are the vehicles used for spreading all sorts of Malware,

Meanwhile Open Source, with it's public peer review process, has
gained endorsements from the NSA, the FBI, MI5, and numerous other
police, military, and intelligence organizations, many of which have
even expressed that OSS and Linux is "too secure", making court
ordered wire-tapping into PCs more difficult, sometimes even
impossible.


> --
> K.http://slated.org

Erik Funkenbusch

non lue,
9 juil. 2008, 13:04:2009/07/2008
à
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:

> Today, Microsoft is trying to do the same thing with OpenXML,
> embedding "oleObjectx.bin" objects into zipped documents, making it a
> trivial matter for hackers to embed malware in OpenXML documents and
> spread them to carefully qualified targets.

Rex. You've been told this before. OOXML and Office do exactly the same
thing ODF and OpenOffice do in this regard. Even your precioius employers
Lotus Symphony does this. All of them support OLE object embedding.

Why do you pretend that Microsoft is doing something insidious and heinous
when this is the standard for all office formats, including ODF?

> Meanwhile, Open Document format, which is much more robustly
> documented

Bullshit. In fact it's so UNDER documented, that they've spent the last 3
years trying to flesh out the problems that should have been there in the
first place, first with the 1.1 revision, and now with the 1.2 version
which is nearly doubling the size of the documentation.

> and much more secure, has been gaining the support of
> major players including numerous government agencies, companies like
> IBM, and key players all over the world.

Your "much more secure" comment is completely without basis. Considering
ODF allows, and OpenOffice and Symphony actually utilize OLE object
embedding, you're out of line.

Moshe Goldfarb.

non lue,
9 juil. 2008, 10:53:1209/07/2008
à
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:


> This wouldn't be the first time that the ISO was bought and sold like
> a $3 hooker.

More proof of the cheap nature of Linux loons.

You expect to pay $3.00 for a hooker?
No wonder you guys seem to like buggering each other.

Erik Funkenbusch

non lue,
10 juil. 2008, 06:34:4310/07/2008
à

What, Rex? No response?

Didn't think so.

You're full of shit as usual.

JEDIDIAH

non lue,
10 juil. 2008, 16:36:1010/07/2008
à
On 2008-07-10, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:04:20 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:
>>
>>> Today, Microsoft is trying to do the same thing with OpenXML,
>>> embedding "oleObjectx.bin" objects into zipped documents, making it a
>>> trivial matter for hackers to embed malware in OpenXML documents and
>>> spread them to carefully qualified targets.
>>
>> Rex. You've been told this before. OOXML and Office do exactly the same
>> thing ODF and OpenOffice do in this regard. Even your precioius employers

Yeah, but who are you going to trust with the henhouse?

Ideally, neither standard would originate from a particular application
or vendor. The absolute LAST entity it makes sense to trust with something
like this are the people that spent the last 20 years helping to create the
problem in question.

[deletia]

--

Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
building on the works of those that came before.

Judge Alex Kozinski
US Court of Appeals
9th Circuit


Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Rex Ballard

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 11:20:2312/07/2008
à
On Jul 10, 1:34 pm, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>

wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:04:20 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 00:19:06 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:

> What, Rex? No response?

Sorry Eric, I've been a bit busy, trying to learn a new language (I'm
overseas), and dealing with a new project. Just takes a while to get
back to these COLA threads.

You try to claim that ODF and OpenXML function exactly the same way,
and have exactly the same security holes.

ODF is a comprehensive document that provides detailed specifications
from the high level document content down to the smallest elements of
scalable vector graphics. There are some "standard" mime object types
that are supported, such as PNG and JPEG, but other embedded formats
must be installed using plug-ins which have to be authenticated by the
user and by the system at installation time, and cannot be installed
by the content. Furthermore, the installed content can easily be
identified as trustworthy or not, and can be restricted in it's
capabilities.

OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which
describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which
are included in the content. The content itself contains the binary
code which can call any function in any Microsoft library and has all
permissions of the person opening the document. If a user account is
set up as "Administrator", then the application can mess with the
registry, create, download, and hide files, can execute applications
in those files, can install any number of new viruses, and generally
wreak havoc on the system.

I'll leave it to others to document the exact details (as I said, I'm
busy these days), but I'm sure anyone who tries to publish these
vulnerabilites will probably find themselves getting the same
treatment that Tracy Reed of Ultraviolet.org got when he tried to
publish his warnings about ActiveX controls back in 1997. Microsoft
got a court injunction against him, and forced him to take down the
content, claiming that it was being used to encourage hacking, and was
damaging the Microsoft brand.

Over the last 10 years, we've seen these very same techniques,
documented back in 1997, used widely to spread viruses including
Melissa, Nimda, Sky, BugBear, and about 250,000 other viruses, worms,
and malware, not including spy-ware and other "Microsoft Authorized"
invasions of our privacy.

I got a couple of docx documents and had trouble getting them to open,
even with the plug-in for Office XP. Next thing I know, I get a
notice from my registry auditor that I have 1300 new registry errors.
And suddenly, my PC is churning the disk-drive and the network
connection at 3:00 AM (I'm getting old and have to get up), and the
network shows that I'm uploading something at full speed, even though
my computer is supposedly sleeping.

It isn't a back-up program that I'm running.

I would encourage COLA readers and OSS advocates to explore this in
more detail.

get someone with Office 2007 to send you a docx file.
unzip it using pkzip or winzip or unzip.

look at the binary files.

replace one binary object with another.

zip up the document,

see if your office-2007 user can read the "enhanced" document.

For those of you with OLE programming skills, create an OLE object
that creates a file, and e-mails that file to you using smtp.

Send a document with this new ole object embedded (along with the
others) and see if you get an e-mail.

I haven't tried this, and I don't know if it will work. I'm not sure
how hard it would be to make it work. I just think it might be an
interesting project worth investigating, especially if you are
considering the migration of a few thousand users to Vista and Office
2007.

I'd love to see what the results turn out to be. After all, if it's
that easy to take control of a recipient's machine just by sending
them a "trusted" Word, Excel, or PowerPoint attachment, just think how
much chaos a really aggressive malicious hacker, with a goal of
obtaining marketable information about your business, could do.

Homer

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 13:33:5312/07/2008
à
Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:

[snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]

Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

18:33:27 up 204 days, 15:09, 4 users, load average: 0.14, 0.17, 0.15

Roy Schestowitz

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 15:27:1212/07/2008
à
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>
> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?

I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple of days ago.
Rex makes good posts. That's why the WinTrolls absolutely must daemonise and
smear him so aggressively, at all cost.

More attacks on Rex mean he's on to something -- that he's on the right topic.

- --
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: stop maintenance; get more actual work done
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 905512k total, 888868k used, 16644k free, 13124k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh5BZAACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4xoACeKOZtHqRIxO3XO0kxti//3bNh
OBkAnjMVhp92hPz7xyzvNuIfsK+Tx9Bm
=noD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hadron

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 14:46:5712/07/2008
à
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> writes:

> ____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____
>
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>>
>> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>>
>> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>
> I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple of days ago.
> Rex makes good posts. That's why the WinTrolls absolutely must daemonise and
> smear him so aggressively, at all cost.
>
> More attacks on Rex mean he's on to something -- that he's on the
> right topic.

You really are a loony Roy. God help you when you try to get real
employment.

Rexx is an intelligent man - but he's a dreamer and a liar. I suspect
he's playing a game with you "advocates".

--
- "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
"we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

Tim Smith

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 18:38:2212/07/2008
à
In article
<31a66169-d9e7-4715...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,

Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ODF is a comprehensive document that provides detailed specifications
> from the high level document content down to the smallest elements of
> scalable vector graphics. There are some "standard" mime object types
> that are supported, such as PNG and JPEG, but other embedded formats
> must be installed using plug-ins which have to be authenticated by the
> user and by the system at installation time, and cannot be installed
> by the content. Furthermore, the installed content can easily be
> identified as trustworthy or not, and can be restricted in it's
> capabilities.

What do you mean by "ODF". At first, I assumed you meant the document
format documented at the OASIS site, but the specs there are not even
remotely like what you describe above.

> OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which
> describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which
> are included in the content. The content itself contains the binary
> code which can call any function in any Microsoft library and has all
> permissions of the person opening the document. If a user account is
> set up as "Administrator", then the application can mess with the
> registry, create, download, and hide files, can execute applications
> in those files, can install any number of new viruses, and generally
> wreak havoc on the system.

Same question for "OOXML", as what you describe above is not even
remotely like anything actually in the OOXML spec from ECMA or ISO.


--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 18:41:0312/07/2008
à
In article <11940881....@schestowitz.com>,

Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> ____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____
>
> > Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> >
> > [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
> >
> > Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>
> I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple of days ago.

So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness to
steal first, ask later have to do with that?

--
--Tim Smith

Moshe Goldfarb.

non lue,
12 juil. 2008, 21:15:5012/07/2008
à

Seems typical for the Linux loon community...
Roy Schestowitz was using graphics images on his website without the
author's permission for quite a long time even after he was asked to remove
them

What is it with these Linux advocates that they think everything is there
for free and for their taking?

Don't they even consider the hard work people put into some of this stuff
and the fact that these items are protected by laws?

Rex Ballard

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 02:04:4213/07/2008
à
On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>
> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?

No objections at all, please feel free to repost. And thanks for the
attribution,
many reporters simply paraphrase me, without attribution.

> --
> K.http://slated.org

Rex Ballard

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 02:06:3013/07/2008
à
On Jul 13, 1:41 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <11940881.OcejPpE...@schestowitz.com>,

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
> > ____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____
>
> > > Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
> > > [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>
> > > Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>
> > I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple of days ago.
>
> So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
> permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness to
> steal first, ask later have to do with that?

Actually Roy did ask for permission to repost several months ago, in a
private e-mail, and I had no objections.


> --
> --Tim Smith

Rex Ballard

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 03:12:1213/07/2008
à
On Jul 13, 4:15 am, "Moshe Goldfarb." <brick_n_st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:41:03 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
> > In article <11940881.OcejPpE...@schestowitz.com>,

> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> >> ____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____
>
> >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
> >>> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>
> >>> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>
> >> I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple of days ago.
>
> > So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
> > permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness to
> > steal first, ask later have to do with that?
>
> Seems typical for the Linux loon community...
> Roy Schestowitz was using graphics images on his website without the
> author's permission for quite a long time even after he was asked to remove
> them
>
> What is it with these Linux advocates that they think everything is there
> for free and for their taking?

Actually, usenet newsgroup postings are considered public domain.
It's a bit like speaking in a town hall. Normally, if someone has a
long and well-written post, someone who wishes to repost it is a nice
courtesy to at least acknowledge the original author.

On the other hand, when I post on the Internet, I am posting my own
personal opinions and there is no review process. They can refer to
me as a consultant with 28 years of industry experience, but they
can't refer to my employer, since I'm not posting on behalf of my
employer (who may or may not agree with me, and has not reviewed my
posting to remove anything they don't agree with).

> Don't they even consider the hard work people put into some of this stuff
> and the fact that these items are protected by laws?

Again, a usenet posting is published with the understanding that you
putting the post into public domain. You can say anything you like,
because if you say something that is way off base, someone can respond
to it immediately. Usenet newsgroups are the ultimate in free
speech. The cost is that your postings can be reproduced or
paraphrased at any time.


Homer

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 14:48:2213/07/2008
à
Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On Jul 13, 1:41 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <11940881.OcejPpE...@schestowitz.com>, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> ____/ Homer on Saturday 12 July 2008 17:33 : \____

>>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly: [snip
>>>> excellent analysis of OOXML security issues] Any objections to
>>>> me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>>>
>>> I've already reproduced this with attribution in BN.com a couple
>>> of days ago.
>>
>> So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
>> permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness
>> to steal first, ask later have to do with that?

Smith, you should officially adopt the word "obtuse" as your middle name.

This is a /public/ forum, and as such anything posted here is in the
public domain, and does not /require/ permission to reproduce.

I didn't ask Rex for permission because of anything to do with ownership
("steal first", LOL!), I asked because it's the /polite/ thing to do.

Is manners something else you don't understand, along with /morals/, or
is this just one of your diversionary tactics to avoid addressing Rex's
observations?

> Actually Roy did ask for permission to repost several months ago, in
> a private e-mail, and I had no objections.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

19:48:06 up 205 days, 16:23, 4 users, load average: 1.33, 1.15, 0.68

Homer

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 14:45:4613/07/2008
à
Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
> On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:

>> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>>
>> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>
> No objections at all, please feel free to repost. And thanks for the
> attribution,

Thanks.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "Stallman has frequently pointed out, Free Software is by no means
| antithetical to making money: it's just a question of how you make
| money." ~ Glyn Moody: http://tinyurl.com/4wn2l2 (ComputerworldUK)
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8

19:45:15 up 205 days, 16:20, 4 users, load average: 1.49, 1.01, 0.55

Tim Smith

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 17:20:4213/07/2008
à
In article <m8vpk5-...@sky.matrix>, Homer <use...@slated.org>
wrote:

> >> So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
> >> permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness
> >> to steal first, ask later have to do with that?
>
> Smith, you should officially adopt the word "obtuse" as your middle name.
>
> This is a /public/ forum, and as such anything posted here is in the
> public domain, and does not /require/ permission to reproduce.

Wrong, as a matter of law, in the US, all of Europe, Australia, most of
Asia, and most of Africa. Do you *ever* research anything you don't
know about before offering your opinion?

--
--Tim Smith

Tim Smith

non lue,
13 juil. 2008, 17:22:3613/07/2008
à
In article
<b40a7d30-7543-49e5...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,

Rex Ballard <rex.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So? [H]omer is doing the right thing and asking the author for
> > permission before reproducing his work. What does your willingness to
> > steal first, ask later have to do with that?
>
> Actually Roy did ask for permission to repost several months ago, in a
> private e-mail, and I had no objections.

I was referring to Roy's tendencies in general. He's taken copyrighted
work without permission before, put it on his website, and refused to
take it down even after the author asked him to. His excuse--he said
that since he attributed the work, it was actually helping the author.

--
--Tim Smith

Roy Schestowitz

non lue,
14 juil. 2008, 00:28:5714/07/2008
à
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

____/ Homer on Sunday 13 July 2008 18:45 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>> On Jul 12, 8:33 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rex Ballard spake thusly:
>
>>> [snip excellent analysis of OOXML security issues]
>>>
>>> Any objections to me reprinting this in my Blog with attribution?
>>
>> No objections at all, please feel free to repost. And thanks for the
>> attribution,
>
> Thanks.

The word has begun spreading. :-)

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-74155/docx-the-perfect-vehicle-for-viruses
http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/13/ooxml-back-orifice-2007/

- --
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | "Quote when replying in non-real-time dialogues"


http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E

Mem: 2075800k total, 1972692k used, 103108k free, 36464k buffers


http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkh61gkACgkQU4xAY3RXLo78oQCfchWANU2hs4JrG70rBt8M28YD
ihYAn3pe3XWNS6KvI5RoXagZjub1cKFn
=xB58
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Répondre à tous
Répondre à l'auteur
Transférer
0 nouveau message