Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Opening Office XML Formats
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jan 30, 2005 09:51 AM
from the what-does-that-mean-exactly dept.
from the what-does-that-mean-exactly dept.
sriram_2001 writes "Microsoft has opened up the XML schemas for Office 2003, thereby silencing a lot of criticism. This could potentially open the way for several government contracts as certain governments have made open standards (and not open-source) a pre-requisite.
In their FAQ, Microsoft not only says that open source developers can distribute software built using them, but also that they'll make all future updates available using the same terms.
Here is the Official Microsoft Site and CRN
and Techworld have stories about it."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Opening Office XML Formats
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 356 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Funny)
(http://calum.org/)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~christurkel/journal | Last Journal: Monday March 05 2007, @02:21PM)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ckwop.me.uk/)
Where's the catch? I mean, there has to be for MS to open up one of the keys to its kingdom. Even if Open Source apps can't use it, commercial ones like WordPerfect can. MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on. That doesn't sound something MS would want to do.
It's the lesser of two evils for Microsoft. The thought of being excluded from the government contracts for not being open would probably make Microsoft's management squirm.
The reason being is that we would probably see the widespread deployment of some non-MS office suite as a result and this would work towards loosening their strangle-hold on the desktop productivity suite.
By opening formats, they can get in on these contracts. So while it may still damange their business model it will damage it less than not opening formats.
Simon.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30 2005, @03:18PM)
It isn't enough to say that the file formats are open and available to open source develpors, if the features the file format supports are patented. For example, suppose that Microsoft had patented pivot tables. An open source spreadsheet could read the file, and recognize the pivot table, but have no recourse other than to throw up a note in the user's face saying something to the effect, "This space is supposed to be occupied by a pivot table, but we don't do them."
Now, that said, the patent game might have have started to late for Microsoft, in that the things that matter most to the users might already be in the public domain.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.mukund.org/)
FUD. It sometimes helps to read the linked pages.
Q. The patent license associated with the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas states that "Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas." What does this statement mean and to what specific patents and/or patent applications does this statement relate?
A. As an industry leader in the design and development of innovative computer technology, Microsoft has made a significant investment in research and development (R&D). With an annual budget of nearly $7 billion, Microsoft's R&D commitment is among the highest of the world's major technology providers, both on an absolute basis and as a percentage of sales. Like other major technology providers, Microsoft routinely applies to governments around the world to obtain patents on our inventions. A patent establishes ownership of an invention, enabling the patent owner to benefit commercially from investments in innovation. A patent is granted if government patent examiners conclude that an invention is a true innovation compared with existing technology. Microsoft has been awarded thousands of United States patents, and our worldwide portfolio continues to grow.
Under the patent license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, Microsoft offers royalty-free rights both to its issued patents and patents that may be issued in the future as an outcome of the patent process. To learn more about Microsoft's intellectual property policy and to find links to government patent offices, we encourage you to learn more about Microsoft Intellectual Property at the Microsoft Web site.
We have chosen a simple and straightforward licensing approach that should appeal to a wide variety of potential licensees because it broadly covers all applicable patents and patent applications instead of only those that are enumerated.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see the magic words there like: sub-licensable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable. Maybe they do this in the actual license, but it doesn't say that in the paragraph that you quoted. Without it being sub-licensable and irrevocable, it's no good for GPLed and other free software.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.howtobeinvisible.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 04, @07:42AM)
The technical documentation is available on the Internet for anyone to copy and read
The schemas are based on the W3C standard for XML
The license is royalty-free
The license is perpetual
The license is very brief and available to anyone
I believe that covers your questions about "worldwide" and "perpetual".
However, the license itself plainly states you are not allowed to sub-license. The only case for revocability stated is: "Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation."
However, it does seem quite broad:
"Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas."
I can see an LGPL library for handling MS-OFFICE formats. Also, remember the GPL addresses copyrights and NOT patents, which this license covers. You right your own code, it is your copyright, not Microsoft's.
-Charles (IANAL)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes indeed. But think about it: do they really have a choice?
Since governments are requiring use of open standards, it seems only reasonable that they would be forced to do that. Every corporation has transactions with government(s), so they would be forced to either support some other office format, or open up their own. Of the two options, opening up their own format is the smarter one: given their current dominance it is more likely that other office suites will employ it for reasons of compatibility, which removes the stress and cost of adding support for an open format from MS. In addition, MS can keep developing its format and let others play catch-up every time it rolls out some new version of it.
Re: Where's the catch? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 14 2004, @05:03PM)
Remember the discussions a while back about MS patenting some of their XML encoding schemes? This could well be part of a nefarious plot. Sorta like what happened with the GIF format, y'know. We all start writing software that uses some of MS's XML, some of our software is widely used, and then 10 years from now, MS says "Oh, BTW, you're violating several of our patents. Yes, we said you could use the open parts of our XML, but we didn't say you could use the patented parts."
Legalities of such things can be very, very tricky. See also the various discussions here in which people confuse the various kinds of "IP", such as patent, copyright, and trade secret. Permission to use a copyrighted thing is not the same as permission to use a patented thing, and that's different from permission to use a trade secret.
Before doing anything with any MS "IP", it might be wise to consult a good IP lawyer.
Microsoft has been applying for patents at the rate of several per day. This costs time and money. Presumably there's a reason they're doing this.
In the case of giant corporations, paranoia is always in order. They can easily bankrupt the rest of us with legal fees.
Re: Where's the catch? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ffii.org/)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 30, @10:59AM)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://jearl.0catch.com/)
The point that you are missing is that Microsoft isn't really competing with WordPerfect or OpenOffice.org in the office suite arena. When it comes to office suites Microsoft is primarily competing with old versions of MS Office. Most MS Office users are still using MS Office 2000 (or earlier) that don't read the fancy new XML formats. If Microsoft can get the U.S. (and other) governments to adopt their new XML formats then millions of MS Office users will have to upgrade to a new office suite that reads the new formats. Some of these folks might take advantage of OpenOffice.org or WordPerfect's ability to read these file formats (assuming that these programs do a fairly good job of reading and writing these formats), but most will simply purchase new copies of MS Office.
When Microsoft changed their MS Office formats in Office 97 lots of Microsoft customers were very very upset. This time around Microsoft knew that it couldn't force customers into a format change, and so it is doing everything in its power to convince folks to start using the new formats. Everyone deals with the government, and so making the XML formats a government standard actually works in Microsoft's best interests. The fact that the formats are open is basically a red herring. Microsoft knows that its competitors are going to reverse engineer their formats no matter what happens. Microsoft also knows that using the patents that they have offensively would be an expensive PR disaster. Lots of large organizations would get nervous about MS formats if Microsoft started suing people.
Microsoft wants people to use their XML formats. The fact that this also will help keep OpenOffice.org's formats out of the government sector is nothing more than a bonus. Microsoft is far more worried that people will continue to use Office 97 indefinitely than it is about OpenOffice.org taking over the world.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can get away with opening their document and getting some of the OSS people to think that it is a setup that they are going to use at some point in the future then the better for them.
One of the bonuses for them is that they already have this document format implemented. So they have a head start on what they expect to be the de facto standard.
This move might even be the best way for Microsoft to compete with open source. That is they must keep ahead of open source. They create something new, release it, then open up the format (which would be reverse engineered if they didn't; it also looks good that they are playing along with OSS), and as soon as competeders catch up they release something new again. As long as whatever they release is better than the one before it then not only do they generate profits but they remain a step ahead of everyone else.
I bet they are expecting the open source community to do some innovation as well. With their format open and based on xml there should soon start appearing multiple xsl methods of generating xhtml from the word documents. Their licence might even be compatable enough that they could use the best of these xsl documents to make word save html files. The best part of this for them is that innovation done by the open source community is free innovation for microsoft. Meanwhile innovation by microsoft takes time and energy for the open source community to decipher.
Nooo... (Score:4, Funny)
Wait.... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://theomega.org/)
Re:Patents (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
According to their FAQ:
While it may not be legally binding, I'd say it's enough permisssion for the layman, and I think it could be argued in court (of course, you could also just read their license which may say the same thing. But I don't speak ligalese myself).
Re:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.nodomain.org/)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
My area code is 666 and I just looked outside. It's completely frozen too. Yup.
A luke warm welcome (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.ckwop.me.uk/)
But in the back of my mind, I've got a feeling this is "embrace and extend" all over again. They might well give the outward appearence of openness while in fact restricting the license in such a way that it really doesn't change the situation.
I don't know.. i just can't trust a convicted monopolist with this stuff.
Simon.
Hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. You should check with your legal counsel if you have questions about a particular open source software license.
"That may preclude development" sounds fishy. Knowing MS hates the GPL, they might have made it GPL-incompatible. I can't wait till Pamela Jones scrutinizes this. Before I read the Groklaw version, I'm holding back the celebration.
Ok.... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://scott.progbits.com/)
No GPL? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license?
A.
Yes. There are many open source licenses available in the developer community. One useful place to review the various licenses that have been approved by the open source community is at Open Source Initiative.
The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. You should check with your legal counsel if you have questions about a particular open source software license."
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt this preclude them being used in GPL works? Wasnt it something like this i.e. an advertising clause, which lead to the forking of XFree86 ?
Re:wel... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.encyclope...i_herd_u_liek_mudkip)
And I don't think Microsoft is really afraid of Open Office... I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice. It does what I need it to do and how I need it done.
And your comment about the "road to switching" is pretty funny. That would be like saying "Installing and using eMule is "along the road to switching" because it's open source.
Maybe your IPs were banned for a reason?
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.sooreams.com/)
Yes, they are mainly doing this to get government contracts.
Yes, they are probably doing this to get good PR among geeks.
But hell, they're still doing it!
Let's try not to be too cynical, Slashdotters. Microsoft is doing a good thing here. This doesn't forgive them for all the other naughty things they do, not by a long shot, but it's still a big deal and a big step forward.
Hip hip hooray!
License inside a .msi file? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html)
Tried to download this thing to see if it had acceptable (re)distribution terms for inclusion in GPL-compatible programs like AbiWord, KOffice or OpenOffice.org. But all I could find was some xsdref.msi file.
How does one open/extract such a thing? Does anybody has the distribution terms as clean/clear text file?
Please read Groklaw today (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 25, @04:26AM)
Re:Please read Groklaw today (Score:5, Informative)
(http://bityard.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 08 2002, @04:18PM)
So, the fact that they're now open is not particularly good news for the open source community. It's like the browser wars all over again...
err... the catch? (Score:3, Insightful)
To quote:
So what does that mean? They are "committed" but on the other hand "reserve the right to change"? How is that committed?Q. Is Microsoft committed to making any future updates to the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas available under the same terms and conditions as the licenses offered on November 17, 2003?
A. Yes. Microsoft is committed to making updates to the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas available under the same terms and conditions as the licenses offered on November 17, 2003. At the same time, Microsoft reserves the right to change its policy and/or the terms of the licenses with respect to future versions of Office.
Does this mean they can create an update to Office, alter slightly the schemas, close it and/or require royalties, etc?
GPL incompatible (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.linuxbe.com/)
You can only use the 'patented and copyrighted' scheme when you 'include the notices described in the license for Office 2003'.
This makes it GPL incompatible. Period.
Next!
Re:GPL incompatible (Score:5, Insightful)
The way the GPL is currently written means GPLed projects can take from most other non GPLed projects without giving anything back, which I thought was one of the reasons for opensource?
Re:GPL incompatible (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.linuxbe.com/)
I'm talking pre-linux-1.0 now...
The BSD folks tend to say: nobody will like the GPL because no business will accept it.
Turns out you were wrong: We live now in 2003 and most of the OpenSource software written is GPLed, and we love it.
I don't want to say the BSD license is evil, not at all (while BSD supporters are often less friendly wrt GPL)! Yet the GPL is a better guarantee for our freedom as technological people than the BSD license.
The evolution since the 90s till now has also proven that the GPL license is a more succesfull software license, aside from bringing more freedom to the general public.
Commercially speaking, the BSD license can sometimes be more interesting, however... not in all cases.
The way I see 'giving back' is one in which the freedom of the software is guaranteed, so I don't see any problem there.
Microsoft has just tried another time to:
1) Have an argument in their discussion with government that their license is 'open enough'.
2) Work contradictory to anything remotely touching it's only cash cow: MS Office.
Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML? (Score:3, Interesting)
The license (Score:4, Informative)
Net even BSD-compatible. (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday March 28 2004, @08:38AM)
The licensing agreement is scary... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.legacybookspress.com/)
Not too much surprising in the first section. It seems to me that it says essentially that you can use it, and there are patents involved.
That last paragraph of that section is a bit exclusionary, but again, not surprising - if you break the license, you can't use the product. Pretty standard. But this is where it starts to get interesting.
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights. (Quoted from the licensing agreement from the above link under fair use copyright laws)
This is the first section that makes me scratch my head. Who is Microsoft to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own intellectual rights? They're not prohibiting the transfer of Microsoft's rights, but the end user's.
Now, my reading of it may be wrong, but it seems to me that the next paragraph is telling me that if I'm a developer using these schemas, and the U.S. State Department releases a document in Microsoft's XML format, then I'm not allowed to open that document and read it, unless I'm going to alter it. That's puzzling to me, as it makes no logical sense. But the real kicker is the paragraph right after it, which really has to be quoted:
Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation. (Quoted from the licensing agreement from the above link under fair use copyright law)
Now this is a very bad clause, and that's the kicker. So if you create a word processor that can read these schemas, and Microsoft steals your technology, regardless of what it is, you're not allowed to sue them if you want to keep your license.
Or, put this way, the moment OpenOffice or StarOffice implements these schemas, Microsoft can plunder their source code, and the only way OO or Sun can fight it is to lose the compatibility that would make them competitive.
The rest is fairly standard stuff, although the indemnity clause is very frightening when considering the clause I quoted above. So, if Microsoft steals your word processor's technology when you're using these formats, they're not responsible for any damage that they cause, including running you out of business, if it comes to that.
Come to think of it, this is a VERY bad agreement.
Re:The licensing agreement is scary... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.haakonnilsen.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 06 2004, @06:59AM)
I thought you said you could read legalese. It says, in the text you quoted yourself, that Microsoft can cancel your license to the schemas if you sue Microsoft for patent infringement in relation to their use of their own schemas. Source code is generally not protected by patents, but by copyright. So your take on this is faulty at best.
Why Governments Care (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://advancedstornext.blogspot.com/)
(and why more companies are starting to care also)...
Hidden text, unknown OLE links, undo and revision information. Too many things are found floating around a document. Even though PPT isn't part of this equation, Word documents can now have a (relatively compilicated) stylesheet applied against them as part of the "scrubbing" process.
Be it metadata, or routine edits and changes [coredump.cx], Word is a dangerous portal into a company's opinions or sensitve government data. What everyone wants is the simple, provable method for knowing only their best foot is placed forward.
While governments play only a minor role in the balance sheets of Microsoft, changes like this solve the only real, outstanding technical hangup governments have with Office (excluding the PPT exclusion).
Yeah but... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/~Spy+der+Mann/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday November 15, @12:57AM)
What's the matter, MS? Chicken?
Give me a fucking break (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
BTW, the word on the street is, the next version of Office will save all its files in XML. Yep, that's right. XML will be default. Now whether or not it will be compatible with XML Office 2003 understands - that's another question.
XML Not Round-Trip (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
More importantly, how is Microsoft going to demonize us open source commies?