Microsoft Opening Office XML Formats 356
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."
Hold on... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Now... (Score:4, Insightful)
More importantly, how is Microsoft going to demonize us open source commies?
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
wel... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Don't think so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary: if you absolutely must use their patent in order to read or write one of their XML formats, you have a license to do so. You cannot use their patents for any other purpose.
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?
Re:Patents (Score:3, Insightful)
But hey, I'll take a BSD-licensed office suite that can perfectly read MS formats anyday. For that matter, this may not even conflict with the OO.org licensing.
Market decides, Microsoft has to play along. (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:4, Insightful)
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:GPL incompatible (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The licensing agreement is scary... (Score:4, Insightful)
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:What this is and isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like you are saying it is a bad thing for a company to gain money from something they invest time and research money in? Let me ask you what you do, unless you get paid by the government or university, your company is doing the same thing on some level. And if you work for the government, or university you are just adding an extra layer to the process. So people get paid from comercial companies, and then they pay the university or government though taxes or grants.
I would really like to know what you point is. What are you not going to be happy until we move to a totally un-capitalistic society (i.e. socialism)? A majority of research money to advance technology comes from what companies take in as profit. That includes the money that Microsoft gives to universities, to advance computer science, and thus advance Linux as well as all other software. Every company contributes this way, Apple, Red Hat, IBM, Microsoft, etc. And the leaches over at the Linux Kernel group just take the technology and don't contribute anything to the universities.
So I don't sound like a total troll, the Linux Kernel by proxy goes and helps IBM, and Red Hat to donate to these causes. Also Apple, and Microsoft are probably two of the largest contributers to universities and thus Open Source, even though both of them do very little for the open source community.
You should really check your hate at the door when replying to these articles. In addition you mentioned that 50% of Office users have a pre-2003 version, it is probably higher than that, but does that mean they should just cease development on the product and stop moving it forward. In addition somebody has to define the schema for the files, why not Microsoft?
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:3, Insightful)
Because when you come down to it, Word and Excel are very capable, mature office programs. Open Office just doesn't feel right yet, and I don't think it's a limitation of the document format that causes it.
Other office apps have been fairly compatible with MS Office documents for some time.
Guess this is appriopriate (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.
Guess we're nearing stage 4.
Re:Hold on... (Score:1, Insightful)
Being a restriction beyond what is prescribed within the GPL automatically makes it GPL incompatible.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The main beneficiary of this is Microsoft. The biggest competitor to Office is older version of Office. By making Office 2003 documents into an `open' standard (not supported by older versions of Office) they provide a compelling reason for a number of their business customers to upgrade.
Why Governments Care (Score:3, Insightful)
(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).
Re:wel... (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're saying is that you've got better things to do with your time than learn another interface. I understand; inertia can be a powerful thing. If you've already decided that you are going to remain married to Microsoft for the long term then you have little reason to invest the time to learn something new.
But if your needs ever change -- you acquire a combination of Linux and MS-Windows machines, or you want to avoid MS document fingerprinting -- then OO is something you should seriously look at.
Good job! (Score:1, Insightful)
There is only one loser: other open so called standards. M$ Office reinforce itself as the only (de facto) standard.
Requirement for attribution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:wel... (Score:3, Insightful)
The choice of an IT department is all about TCO and productivity. Will dumping Microsoft Office and moving to OO save money? You'll need to retrain, and productivity will be lower until everyone is comfortable with the new environment. But, you won't have software licensing costs. Future IT budget can go to hardware, jobs, pretzels, etc. in the next few years instead of going to Microsoft.
With Microsoft opening the format, you could start a gradual transition. Doing a simple letter? Use OpenOffice. Need to do something fancy in a hurry? Use Word, wait on learning OpenOffice till you have time. If both suites use a compatible XML format, it won't matter who you collaborate with, it should Just Work.
Not always (Score:3, Insightful)
The rebel doesn't always win.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:3, Insightful)
This is certainly not the feel that your parent poster was talking about and definately not the feel that most software consumers care about. If it was, we'd all be running Linux and the "big company in Redmond" would either be Nintento US or TietoEnator.
Simply wishing that everyone shared the same hatred for MicroSoft is not going to put linux on very many desktops.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a big fan of Fear, but when considering legal consequences, Uncertainty and Doubt are sometimes a good thing.
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.
Re:Nope, too little, too late. :) (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing most people seem to miss, and always underestimate, is that MS does and can compete on merits.
To ignore this is to continually be confused about why they stomp you flat.