Microsoft bends over backwards to prove there's an 'open' in OOXML
Summary: The OOXML vs. ODF drags on. In response to feedback from the national bodies who are involved in Microsoft's ISO standards bid for OOXML, Microsoft is changing how it is making Office binary-format information available.
Microsoft is taking new measures to prove that the "open" in its Office Open XML (OOXML) document format belongs there.
In response to feedback from the national bodies who are involved in Microsoft's ISO standards bid for OOXML, Microsoft is changing how it is making Office binary-format information available. Microsoft is going to put the binary-format documentation on the Web; make a binary-to-OOXML conversion tool available as an open-source license on SourceForge; and make the documentation available under its Open Specification Promise (which is basically MicroSpeak for a pact not to sue).
Microsoft went public about its plans to open up around OOXML interoperability on January 16, two days after the European Commission announced it was opening a pair of new Microsoft-related antitrust probes. One of those probes is focused on Office and OOXML interoperability. (For the record, I requested more information from the European Commission regarding exactly how OOXML fits into its latest investigation and got no response.)
Microsoft invited more than a dozen journalists to its headquarters on the 16th to hear more of the back-story around its OOXML work in anticipation of the ISO OOXML standardization vote in late February. (No, I was not among them.) But Microsoft officials denied that the event and the news had anything to do with the EC probe, and said the timing was coincidental.
Microsoft Office Program Manager Brian Jones blogged about Microsoft's latest moves on January 16. This isn't the first time Microsoft will be making the binary-format information available to third parties, Jones noted:
"It is important to note that substantial use is being made of both the Binary Formats and Office Open XML in the marketplace today. Many products (such as OpenOffice.org) support the Binary Formats. Microsoft has indicated that many companies and public institutions have received the documentation for the Binary Formats, and are working with it at this time, and can create mappings between the Binary Formats and Office Open XML."
So far the only "real" binary-to-OOXML translator that exists is the Sun Open Document Format (ODF) Plug-infor Microsoft Office. A number of other companies (Apple, Adobe, Novell and Microsoft itself) do this translation as part of adding support for OOXML to their wares, but don't make standalone translators available.
Meanwhile, speaking of ongoing politics around OOXML and its ODF rival, the ODF Alliance has posted a white paper rebutting the findings of a Burton Group study, released late last week, that found OOXML a better solution for IT pros than ODF. The ODF Alliance and its backers claim the Burton Group study includes a number of inaccuracies.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Open Specification Promise precludes OSS from implementing
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31551/microsoft-patent-promise-not-gpl-compatible
"What Microsoft intends to do with its OSP is to forbid sublicensability, which is one of the cornerstone for distributing GPL code. The OSP page on Microsoft website is pretty clear about it: "There is no need for sublicensing"."
-Mike
Mike is confused
2) As Mike himself quoted: "There is no need for sublicensing". Literally. Anybody who wants it just goes to the original.
Fraid not, sir.
GPL is a licese, which requires the ability to sublicense, which allows me to build upon the backs of others.
Had you bothered to actually read about the OOXML specification, you'd discover that it contains a number of patents. The OSP is a promise not to sue over the use of said patents, but does not allow for any sublicensing. Therefore, OOXML is not as open as Microsoft would have you believe.
In fact, OOXML is not compatible with GPL, due to the restrictions in the OSP. Got it?
-Mike
If there is a problem is lies in GPL.
[i]?Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft?s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications in response to our comments.?
Mark Webbink
Deputy General Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.[/i]
Secondly, as already said, Microsoft have provided here only a spec., not any code. If anyone wants to build software that implements that spec, there is no need to licence any code from Microsoft. And Microsoft are promising [i]not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification[/i]
Any users of this code are covered by the same promise from Microsoft. This is why they say there is no need for a sub-licence.
Its a fair and open promise. If a particular other licence itself has requirements for sub-licences, how is that Microsoft's fault? GPL isn't the be-all-and-end-all of open source licencing, BTW.
Finally, Microsoft themselves say this...
[i]The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can?t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).[/i]
If it were truly open,
Microsoft has never opened anything. They're not about to start now.
If the GPL were truley open
No one is forced
If a developer wants to keep his code private, (s)he needs to write his/her own code or use code under a different license. Learn basic copyright law, please.
But Axey, No one is required to give away their code.
It is only if you choose to utilize GPL code that the payment required is source code availability and free access to the code. anyone who builds on your code base is also required to return their improvements to you.
The street goes both ways. You may choose either the two way street, or you can choose to implement a one way toll road. The choice is yours.
And you might watch out on the toll road. The congress just might return copyright and patent law to the personal, time limited, Author or Inventor only, monopoly that the Constitution mentions. The effectively unlimited time system that now exists will be returned to Constitutionality. This will most likely be brought about by the very institutions that lobbied for the ridiculously long terms that now exist in the (unconstitutional) law when they determine that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits.
As usally
You are allowed to build things on top of GPL licensed software without giving it away. But IF you transfer the software, with your changes, you MUST give the reciever (customer) the source to the software, including your changes.
And by the way, you used OTHERS software when you added your changes to the GPL licensed software. So you are following the prevoius coders, owners of the code, license. I can't actually not see why you should be able to steel others code, just becouse you can read the source of it. (no, you do not need to answer, as you don't have a clue about how GPL works)
Mike is just plain wrong -- no patents in OOXML
Well Mike, I not only have read ABOUT the spec, I have read it. Contrary to what you claim, there are NO patents in it. (In fact, no standard has patents IN it.)
Further, there are no patent ISSUES with OOXML. You are just trying to keep alive an old lie from the anti-OOXML folks. If you don't belive me, contact the heads of the ECMA and the ISO. They both issued statements that THERE ARE NO PATENT ISSUES WITH OOXML.
Anyone else who cares to check up on this, better check with Brian Jone's recent blog, where details are given. He gives you more than enough information for anyone to check out the truth for themselves.
Link
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones
"Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML."
People - Think what you will, but please, THINK! If you don't care about interop or standards, then fine. Those of us who do want standards realize that OOXML is not in our best interest.
And, for the record, I am being vocal on this point because I feel there is too much misinformation being floated on this issue to ignore it.
-Mike
You are absolutely right, Mikey
stand up to mountains of bull sheet.
The bull sheet is easier to spread faster
because any neet-weet can manufacture and
spread it without the benefit of any
knowledge, education, or training.
To bad you are not
The world offers though he can not take.
In past glory is where he basks,
As the world has relieved him of his tasks.
They say the other one has given in
As with Open Standards we all do win.
?But what of my comrades, they have gone astray
As I see there is none that they fight each day?
?Destroy it all is what I choose
It matters little that we also lose
Second rate is what we should take
If it leaves the other outside the gate?
The only facts that matter are the ones that he creates
The ones born out of spite, and fear, and hate.
His comrades have chosen, and have all moved along
Leaving the Ole Man to sing his same old song
?Am I the only one who can see, the fools,?
he yells to his reflection shimmering in the pool.
But as the truth floats before his eyes
To him only his own truths survive.
I think I would have preferred...
Well you should be happy to know
(though it only took about 5 minutes, and I am sure it shows)
Completely wrong
Wrong, there are patents on how Microsoft implemented it. You are free to implement in anyway you think works that does not infringe on their implementation.
"Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML."
Again wrong, they apply to Microsoft's implementation. Feel free to create your own.
"What isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML."
Pretty clear to me. If you copy their patented implementation you would be in trouble.
"Think what you will, but please, THINK! If you don't care about interop or standards, then fine."
Pardon me? Interop? When you have 95% of the market, interop is pretty much a given. Oh, you mean to make it easy for the other 5%. They can build their own implementation. (Isn't that what open source is good at?) Standards? February and ratification are a few short weeks a away. No reason to wait.
"And, for the record, I am being vocal on this point because I feel there is too much misinformation being floated on this issue to ignore it."
Really? Are you sure? From what I see you come here and rant on anything that is even remotely connected to Microsoft. How can we tell when its just your usual rants and your "I'm concerned" rants? Is there a difference we should be looking for?
Thanks, Axey
This is OK, except that if the only reasonable way to do some process results in the same code, we can look forward to a long drawn out legal battle over the "implementation code".
I really do not see any real difference in where the patent problem lies. It is still an impediment.
I am sure that you will point out any perceived errors in my understanding.
No, you are wrong
1) The algorithms is protected by patents, despite who and how other implements it.
2) Copyrights protects ONE implementation, so only the copyright owner are allowed to make copies of it and allow other to make copies.
What you describe is 2), which is something other than patents.
This is why it is so bad with patents on pure algorithms, buissiness plans etc. It is monopoly on general ideas, not one implementation. (Patents on software TOGETHER with an specific physical/mechanical solution is ok, like algorithm that controll a ABS system in a car. Then you can take that algorithm in use with other applications, like controlling how an airplane makes automatic smoth landings. Two different applications of the algorithm. Patents on only software and algorithm doesn't allow that).
Misinformation from MSFT? How could that be?
It is simply that the organization is an outlaw organization whose entire ethos is to be unethical and deceitful.
MSFT is an organization that is root and branch unethical; it is incapable of acting and dealing honestly because deceit is its primary cause of action.
As a rule of thumb, everything MSFT says or does should be, until further information comes about, considered dishonest and deceitful.
If it says, "The Wow is Now" this means that whatever the device or program, it almost certainly will not work as described. If you buy an Xbox, you should assume it will burn up and repeatedly malfunction.
MSFT is so historically habituated to manufacturing junk that it is, by now, virtually impossible for it to sell anything that works as advertised.
I like the candid content of your posts
practical, factual, and unmitigated
information.
Thanks! Good luck!