>I really can't figure out your motives here.
I can neither figure out yours. Two days ago you put down a request to put
together an open specification stating that it already existed, and refered
them to a consortium standard that depends on a MicroSoft license. Why would
you want to stifle open development?
>My most optimistic guess is that you read some outdated text on a website
I read the license agreements on the AAF site, this is not 'a' website, it
is that of the body authorising the specification you suggest the open
source community adopt. If these are outdated text then perhaps the very
authority should be pressurised, however I have a feeling their information
might just be up to date. That license states that distribution requires
that their license be signed, and another license from MicroSoft stating:
"Microsoft's Structure Storage file format as REQUIRED in the AAF
Why can't you perhaps accept that you cannot foist this as a open source
standard. If you wish to implement then you are free to do so, but if you
want to suggest it be that used as an open source alternative then can you
expect to do that and not have some degree of contestation?
Until there is something on that site to suggest that the licensing be a
little more open then perhaps the community might not be expected to accept
this. This may be the case with the pending XML format although the is no
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!