Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Eases Licensing On Office 2003 Formats
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Jan 15, 2005 09:28 AM
from the opening-up dept.
from the opening-up dept.
kfiller writes "Microsoft has negotiated a deal with the state of Massachusetts to lower licensing restrictions on the Excel and Word XML formats in Office 2003, in exchange for the state to reconsider their focus on adopting 'open standards' to adopting 'open formats'. Is this just another move to encroach on the open source community?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The old MicroSoft Adage (tm) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The old MicroSoft Adage (tm) (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The old MicroSoft Adage (tm) (Score:3, Insightful)
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
OpenOffice.org 2.0 will make it even more difficult for them. I currently use the development versions and I must tell you, they are a giant leap. The advantage of MS-Office melts away. Governments now know that they have to consider using OpenOffice to get discounts for MS-Office. But soon OpenOffice will be a superiour choice.
MS responds here, it does not set the agenda, it does not embrace it reacts to a policy drift out of their control.
Parent
Sounds stupid all around. (Score:3, Insightful)
state: We're going to go to open formats!
MS: Psst.. if you pay us, you can stay with closed formats instead! You know, the ones we use to squeeze you for $$$ ever other year?
state: Great idea! We love paying to be locked in!
Bah.
Re:Sounds stupid all around. (Score:2, Insightful)
...and before some smart-ass comments on MS calling it 'open formats'; MS definition of 'open' is "you can look at it, but we control it". That's what we normal folks call "closed", not "open".
Re:Sounds stupid all around. (Score:4, Interesting)
Figures, though - the original article was written using Word (had to remove the stupid "smart quotes and other bizarre characters" stuff when cutt-and-pasting the quote).
Parent
Re:Sounds stupid all around. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sounds stupid all around. (Score:2, Insightful)
Licensing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Licensing (Score:2)
I think MA may be just pulling a Dell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think MA may be just pulling a Dell... (Score:4, Informative)
From the article [danbricklin.com]: "...In our definition, "Open Formats" are specifications for data file formats that are based on an underlying Open Standard developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body or de facto format standards controlled by other entities that are fully documented and available for public use under perpetual, royalty free, and nondiscriminatory terms.
This not only goes far beyond "flirting with open source to get a better deal," it ignores that angle completely - they'd be happy to buy MS Office if they know they (or anyone else!) can hack together a reader for the format in 300 years based on publicly av ailable information.
Parent
Good or bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I did RTFA and it's a little unclear as to whether this is what's actually happening or not, but I can certainly hope.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
Were this the case, then it'd actually be better for the OSS crowd than mandating the use of any specific application. Any app, anywhere, can read and write MS docs with complete confidence. Nothing to sneeze at.
That said, it remains to be seen what this translates into. I'm betting they open up their schema a bit, but leave the actual data storage closed.
Parent
Re:Good or bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't been paying any attention to what MS has been doing, but it seems to be that this is something that they COULD have been doing. Being in XML is no guarantee of intelligibility.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
As for the Word file format opened, i also hope it happens. Word is a defacto standart, and it's files are used everyday for tons of important docum
Re:Good or bad? (Score:3, Interesting)
For the state to use a format under their "open formats," there can be no restrictions on its use. MS Office XML formats are patented. The article seems to allude to Microsoft licensing the formats for anyone's free use. If that happens, then OOo can implement them directly, and interoperate perfectly with MS Office.
But as with all things business, it's too early to tell, and read the fine print.
Yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well...yes. Why would you expect Microsoft to do anything different? Open source is one of Microsoft's primary competitors - they're certainly not going to do anything to help it along.
This could be good if it's a trend (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050114
The devil is in the licensing details, but maybe Microsoft has [decided|been forced] to play nice in order to not be excluded.
not get excluded (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people wanted 5.25 internal at that time and IBM said 'NO'. Our way or the Highway.
All of the sudden a large number of major corporations and *Government* agencies were buying computers with a specification that said 'Internal 5.25 HD FDD'. I was actually at a event where an IBM rep was trying to tell a major customer that they didn't really need this. One of the effects of this was to automatically remove IBM from the bid process.
Sometime in 1989 or 1990, IBM introduced a 5.25 internal HD FDD for the model 80.
The Moral of this Story?
If enough people wave enough money that someone can't touch, it get's their attention. Even Microsoft.
eric
Parent
Isn't this what we want? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the formats are open, then anyone can write software to read and write them. Surely this is at least a good first step in that direction?
Mmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
What? Where? (Score:3, Insightful)
not a lawyer, would like a clarification (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's a state-only thing, then Microsoft knows it already lost, and is just doing damage control, no?
It's Called Negotiation! (Score:2)
The question really is what can the OSS community do to negate the effect of these so called concessions and really force Microsoft into a different way of doing business?
Just my $.02...
We need a TEST IMPLEMENTATION. (Score:3, Interesting)
Case #2. Microsoft succeeds in getting their file formats approved.
a. We will need a clean TEST IMPLEMENTATION of
1a. Reader
2a. Writer
b. We will need a way to document any variations between Microsoft's output/input and the Test Implementation.
I don't trust Microsoft NOT to break the published "standard" in small, but important ways.
If Microsoft gets this included, then their program's output must be validated against
The real question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the state of Massachusetts stupid enough to drop the long term benefits of open standards and open formats for an indeterminate, short term gain?
Since with proprietary software there is always kickbacks involved, you just have to stir that up with a few politicians and my money is on the state going for the MS "solution".
I'm cynical because I've seen a lot of governments (esp. UK) talk a lot about open formats but it just doesn't happen. Hence, UK govt sites being littered with .doc's :(
Massachusetts is a bad example (Score:3, Interesting)
If the state was able to eliminate spending completely on software, the state IT department's budget would be considerably lessened. In a bureaucracy like the Mass State government, the larger your budget, the more power you have. So when faced with the option of suddenly cutting their budget requirements by a large amount, of course the suits jumped at an offer that allowed them to maintain the prestige of spending massive amounts.
This is a game (Score:3, Insightful)
Policy makers in general really don't understand the differences between open source, shared source or open standards or open formats. And maybe they don't even care most of the time, since the majority of their voters also do not understand or do not care. They can present this as a victory, while only a small minority cares about the details.
Microsoft *wants* to play nice, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is losing customers, particularly European and American state governments, because they don't like Microsoft. Microsoft really does have the best office suite in a technical sense. OO.o is generally less intuitive, and has less features (particularly in spreadsheets, but even the word processor lacks much advanced functionality). Costs are hard to judge, but most studies suggest that using a free office suite instead of MS Office won't pay off over the time periods that corporations and governments make long range financial plans. Switching to OO.o is about politics, not technical or financial superiority.
It's also difficult to switch right now, partially because of proprietary lock-in to the file format. That's one of the things that makes switching so expensive (although probably not the major one, with OO.o import filters being somewhat decent). Customers want to be free to switch. They also want to be free to generate documents from sources other than MS Office and import them natively, and they want to be able to process documents using their own custom tools. Open file formats help all of those things, and so customers are happy.
Microsoft really wants to make customers happy. Opening file formats helps, so Microsoft is doing that. There are risks; if customers continue to hate Microsoft, and Microsoft makes it easier to switch away from them, the obvious result is losing customers. The upside is that they may make customers happy, convincing more to stay. Being a nice guy is directly connected to making customers happy.
From an open-source community view, opening file formats is good. It makes interoperability easier. By itself, though, it's not enough to make customers happy, or to make Microsoft a friend to the OSS community. More moves are necessary, and what they are and when (if ever) the will come is still a big question.
Just a question here, what would Microsoft have to do for you to consider them to be a friendly corporation, rather than an evil and menacing corporate giant? I kind of like them already, but I know I'm unusual in that regard.
Re:Microsoft *wants* to play nice, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good post.
OO.o is generally less intuitive, and has less features (particularly in spreadsheets, but even the word processor lacks much advanced functionality).
IMHO, anyone with prior exposure to MS Office can't say whether or not OOo is less intuitive than MS Office. It can be less familiar if all you know is just MS Office. For either office suite to be less intuitive than the other, you'd have to test with people who have had zero exposure to said office suites.
Just a question here, what would Microsoft have to do for you to consider them to be a friendly corporation, rather than an evil and menacing corporate giant? I kind of like them already, but I know I'm unusual in that regard.
With regards to "opening up" formats, as with the MS Office XML schemas, they'd have to offer a true roalty-free license for access and use - no patent license traps [slashdot.org]. That would be a start.
Just my two cents.
zParent
The Ten Commandments of the Paying Customer (Score:4, Interesting)
You shall have no other priorities before me.
You shall not make for yourself a priority in the form of monopoly or world domination. You shall not seek them; for I, the paying customer, am a demanding customer, punishing the bottom line for the sin of management to the third and fourth product lines of those who are greedy, but showing love to a thousand product lines of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not lock-in the customer, for the customer will not hold anyone guiltless who locks him in.
Remember the law by keeping it holy. Within the law you shall labor and do all your work, but outside the law you shall do no business. Outside the law you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your employee, nor your contractor, nor your family. For the customer is a citizen who has taken part in creating and maintaing the law, but he despises criminals. Therefore the customer blessed the law and made it holy.
Honor the open standards, so that you may live long in the profits the customer is giving you.
You shall not make buggy, insecure, or generally bad products.
You shall not conspire with or attack other businesses.
You shall not steal.
You shall not deceive anyone.
You shall not covet the paying customer's remaining cash. You shall not overcharge him, obsolete his product, break his systems, or covet anything that belongs to your paying customer.
Do to others as you would have them do to you, for this sums up my commandments.
Parent
Open Formats? (Score:3, Insightful)
I will not hold my breath.
Cheers,
Adolfo
I really hate Microsoft file formats (Score:3, Informative)
I just finished up work on a commercial Java text mining package and I spent far too long on code to read Word and Powerpoint files while handling PDF, OpenOffice.org, and AbiWord was fairly simple.
I do have a word (no pun intended
It is not going to happen, but I would love to see pressure from user groups and governments force Microsoft to use the OASIS open XML based document formats. If Microsoft really wanted to give maximum value to their customers, then they would do this on their own (yes, just wishful thinking).
Difference between Open Source and Free Software (Score:3, Insightful)
This is where Open Source might be a less effective rallying point than Free Software. Since Open Source encourages practical reasons why someone using software distributed with source ( like the arguments Eric Raymond gives in "The Magic Cauldron" of cost sharing, risk spreading, or the arguments that file formats are open if the code is visible, etc.), they are designed to appeal to companies and organizations that want to reduce cost and risk. Free Software is much more moralistic that computer owners should be able do as they wish with their machines, and anything less than full right to change and redistribute source code is evil.
The Massachusetts state governments IT department doesn't care about open source. What they do care about is that a MS Word document created by one of the users they support can be read by another user. Or by the same user five years later. Or that the documents can be manipulated by other tools (like automatic indexing, automatic taxonomy generation, or even virus scanners.) They used the request for "Open Standards" to solve this particular issue, and to their satisfaction Microsoft licensing changes solve this problem as well
The advantage of the practical arguments for Open Source is that one can find just need to find one of the arguments compelling to come on board. The disadvantage is that you can lose them just as easily by solving that same issue in a closed source manner. The argument for Free Software is much more absolutist, and it may be easier to get someone to join, but you won't lose them nearly as easily.
NOW they tell us... (Score:3, Insightful)
In earnest, is anyone using Microsoft Office XML for anything?
Martin Kotulla
SoftMaker Software GmbH
EU Commission's Open Standards definition (Score:3, Interesting)
This is actually what the EU commission thinks is an open standard:
It's a very strict definition. For example, PDF doesn't qualify as an Open Standards, because it's controlled by Adobe and doesn't have an open decision-making procedure
I think Microsoft is pretty scared about this, because most EU member states are going to use this definition, together with previous or future decisions to move to Open Standards. That would mean that MS Office either has to support these Open Standards or it will just be replaced by software that does.
Re:Just the rules of competition... (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly. They can't enforce their ideas, "either you do it our way or not at all"
I'd disagree with that. Microsoft is still the monopoly insofar as relatively few large installations of Windows/Office have seriously contemplated switching. But I reckon MS have seen the future, and have deduced that unless they tread very carefully, they're not in it.
Monopoly or not, this amounts to the same thing - they're suddenly forced to compete. Not something Microsoft is terribly ex
Microsoft is still a monopoly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, you can't do that?
Well, I'm sure you can at least get Firefox pre-installed.
Oh, not that either?
What this is is Microsoft attempting to prevent a State from breaking away from the Microsoft monopoly.
The proprietary, binary extensions in MS's version of XML are patented. That gives MS a lot of power when agreeing to a deal like this.
Just look at MS's work to "extend" SPF and how their license was determined not to be Free enough.
The list of approved formats include
If it passes with MS's formats allowed, then it won't.
Parent
Re:well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, we remember. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
We remember Microsoft's TCP stack being a little bit different, which sped things up - if you were talking MS-to-MS. Sometimes. And sometimes it broke stuff badly.
We remember Windows explicitly not talking to DR-DOS, and the solitary little bit of encrypted code in the installer to achieve that.
We remember CIFS back when it was called LANMAN, and please pass me that bucket.
We remember last week when a customer's WinME machine refu
Re:Yes, we remember. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well duh (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine that.
A "Government" is not "the market". (Score:3, Insightful)
To do business with a Government, the business must follow the Laws that that Government has written.
That is why Microsoft is so worried about this. If the Government mandates specific file formats, then the businesses working with/for that government will use those file formats.
And it cascades from there.
Re:By Law, or By Choice? (Score:4, Insightful)
I did so years ago, and seldom if ever have a need to boot Windows due to applications that I need myself.. I do have a need for Windows due to customers using it tho.
> Who wouldn't?
Obviously many people.
There are applications to suit the needs of the average user in many cases, but the average user is not willing to invest the time in making those work and learning to use them. I did because I already had another need for open source software (well, actually for a Unix like system, and buying a sun/sgi/hp/ibm unix box was out of the question for me at that time)
What people often forget is that OSS software might be free as in beer, but you have to work a bit harder to use it for now.
Linux and FreeBSD and similar systems have come to a point where for a knowledgable user, they may be as easy or easier to install and use then Windows and even OS X, but that doesn't really help the average user. Fetting a machine with a reinstalled and preconfigured Linux desktop and modern installers for comemrcial software for Linux go a long way to making this a possibility, but as long as the default offer from your average computer shop is some x86 box with XP home, it will take a long time to get there.
Oh, and even for those who do know a bit about computers in general, a different system still takes a bit of time to get used to, and not all of them are prepared to put in that time.
Parent
Re:By Law, or By Choice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for the few cases where such applications are actually better (asterisk comes to mind) or the comemrcial applications are very expensive (and the user does not want to pirate the software), none for the average user. The argument that the applications don't exist is usually not true however.
For some users having a lot more control over what their computer runs is a good argument either for technical or political or ideological reaso