::::::: You suggest the standardards are not different but you have no reliable infor that the sources from before still apply to the ISO/IEC standard. You also refuse to put any of those so called reliable sources before me so that we can together decide whether those sources actually claim that Office Open XML is not a free and ope nstandard or whether or not the claims in it still apply to the current ISO/IEC standard. Cliam in the past were well known to rely on statements that the format was only implemented by Micrsoft (which is of course long in the past), that Microsoft controlled the format (currently both the ownership and maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 Office open XML are within ISO/IEC JTC1) or that the standard referred to not fully defined item (for which informatio nwas added during the ISO standardization proces). So we can in fact easily see if any old claims still apply but the refused to bring forth those arguments and see if they apply to the ISO/IEC standard is shocking. You claim consensus on a viewpoint that you then refuse to support with actual claims/arguments. I claim that it is enough for an ISO/IEC standard to be publicy availalbe free or charge and royalties to be called a free and open standard. That alone complies with the definitions given on the relevant wikipedia articles. Unless you put forward real arguments (and not some consensus on imaginary non-existing arguments) that these definitions are not met by the ISO/IEC 29500 standard I will readd the claim to the article.