Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Word Document ML Schemas Published
Lars Munch writes "On Monday the 17th November the xml schemas for the Word Document ML along with documentation, was uploaded to the Infostructurebase (ISB). With the Word Document ML specification anybody can generate, view and process Microsoft word documents on any format." (Here are the legal terms under which the schemas can be used.) "The Word Document ML is based on the W3C specification eXtensible Markup Language (XML), there by providing documents that are easy to integrate into a large variety of systems. The Danish Government Infostructurebase is the first schema repository to make the schemas accessible to the public. The Microsoft Office Document ML schemas and documentation can now be downloaded from the ISB Repository." There are more links on this page.
I was struck by Microsoft's about-face on proprietary data formats when I attended their "Microsoft Office System Launch" (details here) earlier this month.
On the "Development" track, I was hoping to get some information on interfacing Office tools as objects in an existing (very large) VB application. Well, I didn't get that, but I did get to see how Microsoft is using XML to cut off one of Open Source software's big draws: open file formats. As mentioned, one of the big selling points was that you no longer have to install an app like Word on your server. You can instead use any XML-generating program to create fully compliant Word/Excel/Whatever files.
So if the PHB was almost talked into Open Source by the security issues of installing a virus portal like Word on a trusted system behind the firewall, Microsoft just cut your legs off.
An interesting case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, *then* beat 'em."
By the way, I bailed out of the "Development" track at lunch. The presentation didn't get into code at all... it was just a demo of how new features in Word will now allow anyone to create XML Schemas and "Solutions" (groups of schemae), and thereby call themselves a "programmer". Just what we need, another way to quickly generate bloated, write-only code.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
....seems like all you have to do is put a notice in the code about using the spec. Sounds kind of like the original BSD license - i.e., with the advertising clause.
The Army reading list
With thanks to Seth Johnson on the DMCA Discuss list for forwarding this earlier today:
t en tlicense.asp
Subject: [Patents] MS Office 2003 XML patented
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:11 +0100
From: Carsten Svaneborg
Organization: www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de
To: patents@aful.org
Hi! Just came across the following:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpa
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License
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.
So usage of MS Word XML files requires a patentlicense:
You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license
terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this
license. You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
The licence is royalty free, but GPL 7 requires the right to sublicence
patent rights to the people who obtain a GPL program from you.
so in other words Microsoft is using patents to prevent GPLed programs from
accessing the XML format that MS Word will be using.
This is very good timing, and goes to show how important it is to ensure
that the software patent directive has articles that protects
interoperativity from consituting patentinfringemet.
Finally. As a 100% Linux user, who has to use Microsoft products at university it has been a pain doing my work at home and transferring it over (without losing any details at all)...
*smiles*
C17H21NO4
Am I going to still be able to edit [friend's] microsoft word docs in openoffice (my understanding was I wasn't going to be able to in the next microsoft release)?
From http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp:
That whole page is worth reading, but doesn't this phrase in particular damage the ability to make use of the information in open source code, whether GPL or BSD?
The page also says:
Unfortunately, the page they ask you to link to doesn't actually exist...
"Here's a quarter, now it's gone. You're a jerk. Now it's back. You're an asshole. Show's over."
Everybody who believes M$ is doing this or any other thing because they just want to play nice raise your flipper.
How much do you want to bet it will be with extremely restrictive licensing, will be incomplete, or both?
Given Microsofts history of skirting around verdicts and legal agreements, how long will this format be valid?
How long before MS switches to either a new markup scheme, or introduces undocumented 'features'?
Cautious welcome. But it doesn't take into account all the Microsoft binary crap does it? Microsoft can still keep on moving the goalposts as usual, and XML schemas or no schemas it makes no difference. We need a fully open format.
"Hey! We're open" says Microsoft. "We use XML." Er. No.
Defeated by my own cleverness and the lameness filter. Now I need to type at random in order to dodge the bullet. Neat-o. Nope, not enough yet. This is better than resorting to cut and pasting of the usual "Important stuff" list, don't you. Although it is rather early for this. DAMN IT still too many caps, although I guess that didn't help, now did it. I guess I could look at the code and see what the percentage is before it dies, but that's way harder than just typing until my fingers bleed.
Wait a second ... I think the XML-format document types are only available for corporate versions of MS office. If that is true there still will be a lot of propiertary binary-only .DOCuments around in the future.
Nice tactics: MS now tells everybody "we use open standards" (as they already do) but the users keep saving files in closed formats.
This is a real problem. However I think it may perhaps be circumvented by having a MSOfficeOpenOffice converter under a BSD-like license. The combination of the BSD'd plugin and eg. OpenOffice might however infringe patents if they were too closely integrated. Murky legal waters. Ugh :-(
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Quick! Find something bad to say about Microsoft!
Legal Notice
Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the "Specification"), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make:
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: [here].
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: [here].
THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" [blah blah blah]
The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.
No other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
following that second link...
Patent License
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.
Except as provided below, 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. A "Licensed Implementation" means only those specific portions of a software product that read and writes files that are fully compliant with the specifications for the Office Schemas. The term "Necessary Claims" means claims of a patent or patent application that are owned or controlled by Microsoft and that are necessarily infringed by reading or writing files pursuant to the requirements of the Office Schemas. A claim is necessarily infringed only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming to the specification because there is no technically reasonable non-infringing alternative for reading or writing such files. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims: (i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties; (ii) covering any enabling technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product incorporating a Licensed Implementation (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet or presentation features or functionality, programming interfaces, protocols), or (iii) covering the reading or writing of files generally or covering the reading or writing of files other than those complying with the requirements of the specifications for the Office Schemas.
If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:
"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true."
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distr
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe now we will stop hearing all the bitching about how MS is evil.
Too bad the link leads to a 404!
Now try the link
Here's a blurb from the sister license granting use of their software patents related to the XML formats:
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
A bit close to the GPL in some respects, hmm?
I wonder, could these licenses get the OSI good housekeeping seal of approval?
The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.
So you can write an app which transforms a Word doc to something else, but you can't refer to your app as a Microsoft Word file converter. So how long until we'll have a "Converter for the Evil Empire's word processor document type" project on Sourceforge?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Microsoft is allowing you to license the patent free of charge but not to sublicense it. The GPL requires that you be allowed to sublicense patents applicable to GPLed software. And that's somehow Microsoft's fault?
I'm assuming it's actually fairly innocent but just how wide a scope does it have under the word 'relating' ?
Finally, what are the legal constraints on M$ changing or withdrawing this licence at a later date? Presumably they are no more limiting than those on the GPL, but then I've never worried about Linus or RMS withdrawing rights from Linux, wheras with M$...
ITIAL's (I Think I'm A Lawyer) out there who can explain?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Not true. Section 7 of the GPL requires that patent rights be publicly available, but it does not require that you personally sublicense those patent rights.
Specifically, GPL section 7 says:
Since the Microsoft patent license does permit royalty-free redistribution, it does not contradict the GPL in this regard (although it may have other incompatibilities; I have not looked at the whole thing thoroughly yet).IANAL, but I think this says no open source implementation is possible, doesn't it?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Despite the posts above about the requirement for patent licences to use the format (how can you patent a file format, I mean prior art!!) this is a step in the right direction.
I expect the open-source office apps to adopt it as an option, and I expect it to not work quite right enough when it goes through an MS->OO->MS cycle, but regardless, it's a wider chink in their armour than they had before, and it's a real argument that they're not obeying their own specs now "Look!" (if so, of course...)
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
This press release from danish govt. agency Open public Information Online (OIO) has more info.
Read the patent license for yourself. (The license for the schemas themselves is basically BSD)
Also this (danish) Computerworld article quoted MS EMEA boss Patrick de Smedt calling Interoperability a "holy grail", an "advantage to the ordinary consumer" and Competition "a very important part of our strategy." The quotes have now been removed again (why??)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
>> Microsoft allowing anyone to access their document formatting?
...
Yes, it's true. And the format is surprisingly easy to understand. Here it is:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<MicrosoftWordXMLDocument version="1.0">
<DocumentBody>
<![CDATA[3kd8dkfjd kxodkrjeis kfjdiwlekrj
df38d8f cj384k3j*#&@)x3 kj454t7u
dfj3kj43 83k*#45j3k 2ldkfjfkf*3&
dkj38d9feod8 sjvkcjf0d]]>
</DocumentBody>
</MicrosoftWordXMLDocument>
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From the Legal info link.n tlicense.asp."
"There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpate
(And just for giggles that link is no good)
An "Open" XML schema that needs a patent license to write software that can read or write it is rapidly approaching the speed of useless. So if you had a plan to start work on an Openoffice filter find out what that patent license entails.
Insert pithy comment here.
<cmdlist>
<command>
<mailto>h4x0r@wegotsworms.com </mailto >
<file>C:\\Documents~1\my_address_book.pdb</file&g
</command >
<command type="system" action="format c:\"/>
</cmdlist>
oops. parse error. but a clean HD!
GPL 7 says that if your program is suddenly found to be encumbered by some legal matter involving patents, for instance, but not limited to patents, and that this encumbrance would make subsequent copiers of the program also liable, then the program cannot be GPL'd. It looks more like Microsoft is trying to control the issuance of a "licensed" designation; i.e., you have an implementation which is stamped "licensed" by Microsoft, but this does not make a derivative work also "licensed".
Create a BSD licensed application that accesses the XML format, so that users will have a choice other than MS Word.
It seems that Microsoft has inadvertently demonstated that the GPL does not always protect the users' freedom, as is its intent. If the user can only use MS Word or some other highly restrictive software to access these file formats, because somebody has decided to be a GPL zealot, then the GPL has become a hindrance to the users' freedom.
Just how long will it be before Microsoft releases a Word Document ML Plus format that is not so open?
Let's face it, Microsoft loves proprietary technology that it owns and that it controls. There's no long-term advantage to it whatsoever in creating a truly open file format - the biggest reason why Microsoft Office applications are so ubiquitous is because people need to read Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access documents they've been sent, not necessarily because those are the best tools for everybody.
Word Document ML is a PR exercise. It's Microsoft saying "See, we're nice and friendly and open, too", at a time when its revenues are beginning (perhaps not significantly yet) to be threatened by open source alternatives. Long-term though, Microsoft will shut up shop again and bring users back to the fold with a proprietary version that's "improved", "enhanced" or "more secure" in some way.
Want proof? Just look at Hotmail. When Microsoft bought it, it promised that the Hotmail service wouldn't be compromised in any way, and that it would continue to remain free. Well, the basic service might still be free but it's been crippled in so many ways - mail filtering that says it will delete junk mail in 24 hours but doesn't, incredibly bad junk mail filtering in the first place, even fewer mail sorting rules allowed now than were allowed a few years ago, a very limited number of addresses and domains that can be blocked, etc. All tactics to get you to subscribe to their enhanced Hotmail service, which has some new features but is made up of a lot of the stuff that Microsoft has stripped from the basic service.
Will people use Word Document ML format? If it becomes standard in Microsoft Word then of course they will. They'll have no choice - Microsoft has a practical monopoly when it comes to everyday file formats. Will Microsoft eventually hijack Word Document ML format by making a future iteration proprietary once more and hence shut out any competing product when it releases them via a patch or whatever? Of course it will.
Why am I so sure of this? Because Microsoft is just like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog. It's in its nature.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Microsoft is trying to appear "Open" while denying the actuallity thereof.
Does anyone seriously believe that third party developers will be able to write Office document generators and formatters with this information? Do we really believe that:
Given the fact that there will always be legal encumbrances with anything interfacing with Microsoft technologies, I believe these schema would be better left ignored by the OS community. With Open Office and KOffice maturing (and the former running on Windows, and available for free), there's no good reason to cater to Microsoft document protocols anymore. They are simply irrelevant.
And no, we in the OS community don't have to copy everything that Microsoft does. Compatibility with Microsoft is no longer a necessity.
Close, Microsoft, but no cigar. Kudos for the marketspeak.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Breakfast served all day!
Putting the "This provided As Is" section in all caps is SOP for licensing. Check any of your software boxes, or Google "software license". Point-and-click examples include the W3C license, or Apache license.
I already have the ability to save my word processing documents as XML. I already have the ability to transform them into other things I want. So do you. check it out.
I'm sure someone, someplace is already working on the appropriate xslt to transform Microsoft's stuff into this more open format, and I'm sure Microsoft has some ace up their sleeve technically or legally to push it into a 'gray' area...
But I just cannot imagine anyone having the gaul to say that my data is only available to me in a format that they control the terms and conditions on. how successful would a paper company be if they put 'terms and conditions' on the use of their wood pulp?
Why bother with proprietary file formats when you have DRM? Make a mendacious nod to 'open file format', and then lock stuff up behind the DMCA. If you want to read a DRM encoded word document, you'll need word. Period.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Shouldn't the category for Microsoft Developers be:
Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.
and shouldn't the logo be sweaty armpits?
Find funky gifts
XML parsing error
fatal parsing error: error occurred while parsing element in line 1, column 1
i
^
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Previously we could reverse engineer their format and use it. Their work was covered by copyright, no problem once we create our own implementation.
This schema is patented. Patents are an exclusive right to use an idea. Now if you use their format without upholding their conditions, you're a criminal, even if you figured out the format yourself.
By publishing the format, they can cast doubt on anyone that does reverse engineer it. "I bet you read the spec on line".
Also, being able to view the format isn't much use. It's XML, but that doesn't mean it will be meaningful cleartext. They can simply uuencode a big block of binary data, stick it between two tags, and it's valid XML.
Learn from the past. Microsoft are not here to do us favours.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Notice the reference to Big Blue as the enemy?
OK, you have your evidence...it really *is* Microsoft with its hand up Darl McBride's...um...sock.
Unless this is some sort of elaborate reference to Steve Jobs' demonization of IBM in the famous Mac "1984" commercial...
In any event, I'm _damn_ proud that I'm the owner of a ThinkPad now.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
It's certainly in Microsofts instance to at least allow Word to read documents complying with the specification, otherwise people may reject office for the simple reason it can't read documents matching it's own standards. And companies friendly ot MS will rely on this for their own development, not just Open Source peeps.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
u>test/u>>
Is Microsoft claiming to have a patent on reading and writing XML?n tlicense.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpate
Also known as "Embrace, and extend".
I'll believe it when I see it. And I'll really believe it, when I see that the EULA on the MS schemas remains open and unrestricted over the next few years.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
Sounds like they are trying to prevent people from adding improvements to it.
So, if you write you own code from scratch to read and write MS Word files and you add in your own features, wouldn't that be a derivative? Are they trying to go after suites like open office who may not implement Word Doc processing to spec?
In general, I find that to be true. There is BSD freedom, and GPL freedom. Two different views on the world. One benifts the person writting the code, the other benifits those that do not. Its a shame there couldn't be something between the two.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Microsoft claims the GPL is viral because it requires derivative works to be released under licenses which are compatible to the GPL so I assume this would, by Microsoft's definition, be viral as well.
I have to admit, I have been skeptical of XML for quite a while, but I can see the advantages with a document like this. With Word being such a proprietary tool for so long, this will finally enable people to create "Word" compatible word processors that are actually 100% compatible, since all they have to do is generate an XML document, not some convoluted binary guacamole.
stuff |
So, here's the spec, but if you talk about it you'll be sued by our trademark©right lawyers, or if you read or write to the format you'll be sued by our patent lawyers. Where do you want to go today? Jail?
I don't see how Microsoft can patent a schema. I believe that there are only four primary statutory classes of patentable things: 1) processes; 2) machines; 3) manufacturing methods; or 4) compositions of matter (chemicals/pharmaceuticals). They may be able to patent the processes, methods or mechanisms (software) that read and write documents adhering to the schema. But the schema itself does not seem patentable, only copyrightable.
IANAL, so maybe I missed something that Microsoft's $1000/hr attorneys did not. For example, maybe they are claiming that a schema defines a composition of matter????
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This schema is patented. Patents are an exclusive right to use an idea. Now if you use their format without upholding their conditions, you're a criminal, even if you figured out the format yourself.
By publishing the format, they can cast doubt on anyone that does reverse engineer it. "I bet you read the spec on line".
With a patent, they have rights to the schema no matter what. You can't "clean room implement" a patent.
Of course, IMO patents are the proper way to restrict software innovations. Leave copyright for art, use patents for engineering.
Microsoft knows full well that an XML schema cannot be patented. The patent nonsense is a way to scare off open source developers. They may hold patents on some algorithms they've used to implement this in MS Office, but we don't have to use those same algorithms to read those documents with an XML schema capable parser and do whatever we like with them.
Don't forget that in the EU patents can not be abused in this, since the nice people from FFII and others got through an amendment that you are free to use patented technologies for interoperability - and I can't really imagine any other uses for a fileformat besides of interoperability.
Real life is overrated.
As I posted before, a relevant link. Now let's see if anyone reads it, and moderates accordingly.
"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed."
.DOC will be with us for awhile, at least as a legacy format. Microsoft itself will benefit from WordML, as they introduce new software that must interoperate with the old. The leading edge of new documents will drag the trailing edge along, until it's all XML, except for islands of lawyers struggling to im/export between .DOC and WordStar.
- William Gibson
--
make install -not war
ha ha
In fact, macros embedded in a word xml document are stored in this way.
The "editdata.mso" file is "activemime" (a format for which I can
find no documentation online); it has a 50 (sometimes 54) byte
header, followed by a zip-deflated OLE document stream.
Heh.
One of the things that's interesting to me is how much Microsoft generates that never gets used. I'll believe that they're using 'open formats' when that's the default file format for saving Microsoft Office documents.
As it stands, they could make it an import/export option, and relegate it to the level of CSV for spreadsheets.
Sure, it's there, but it's little more than a checkbox they can trumpet..
...last kicks
That is what we call this in Mexico. Now this is what i call competitive pressure.
Now what about excel?
Oh and BTW, now MS is playing catch-up with OO.o.
Thanks microsoft, i think you are starting to 'get' it.
NO SIG
Of course, IMO patents are the proper way to restrict software innovations. Leave copyright for art, use patents for engineering
Software =isn't= engineering. If it isn't dependent upon physics, it isn't engineering.
You can't sublicense or transfer the license. That means that Microsoft can stop new implementations any time they choose by simply changing the license on their web site. They may even be able to do that retroactively.
But what does it really mean to license the schema? (Maybe I don't really "get" it) What's the difference between reverse engineering a c-struct or reading the published structure for the c-struct? If you publish something publically, yeah, there's no reverse engineering. But by making it available, how is it more offlimits? Least now no one can claim the DMCA was violated by the reverse engineering.
And if you use the schema and put in the link to their license, can't they just update the content that the link displays turning it into propritary?
Virtually, Edward Wolpert
By keeping you from sublicensing and modifying the specification, Microsoft retains nearly complete control.
Yes, you may be able to write interoperable software under the 2003 specification, but Microsoft can turn around, make a minor modfication in 2004, and you can't update your software to read the new files. Microsoft can kill whatever piece of software they like at just about any time they like.
The GNU license contains the clauses it does for good reasons: without them, free software just doesn't make much sense.
I've done some investigating and discovered that
editdata.mso is "activemime" format (nice, that).
If you base64 decode it, you get something with
a 50 byte header (sometimes it's 54 bytes; not sure why).
The first part of this header is the string "ActiveMime".
Following the header is a zip-deflated OLE stream; zlib can handle it. Open-source
code for reading these OLE streams exists.
But believe me, this is *not* actually documented anywhere...
I don't know whether Microsoft's patent license complies with the letter of the GPL, but it certainly does not comply with the intent. In practice, the combination of licensing and modification restrictions Microsoft imposes means that they can effectively revoke the license whenever they like.
Embrace and extend is the worst thing ever.
What?!?! We can't embrace and extend? That's the worst thing ever!
Besides, I think it was talking about just the schema and not necessarily any works that still abide by the schema but add some extra bells and whistles of their own. Which, as I recall, was a bad thing?? Or is it a good thing today? I get so confused.
It's even better if you have a mustache and tell listeners that they are the master race.
Free as in... BOW BEFORE YOUR MASTER
Lord! I haven't laughed that hard all day. (I guess some people have figured out how to be Insightful while still being Funny.)
Apart from the legal loopholes in Microsoft's license that are big enough to drive a truck through, much more worrisome is the fact that Microsoft asserts that they are getting a patent on an XML Schema. What is the novelty in that schema? It's a standard XML representation of well-known word processing data structures and concepts.
.NET APIs is a similar trial balloon.
This would be a very bad precedent. Microsoft is really trying to push the limits of patentability and testing what they can get away with. Their patent application on
That is something open source and free software developers should really worry about.
I cited the GPL's patent example instead of the sentence with legal force because the patent example is actually relevant here. Nowhere in the patent example in the GPL or in the sentence preceding the example does the GPL state that you personally must have the right to sublicense any relevant patents.
Couldn't you extend the file formats the 'Namespace Module' way? This has several advantages: First off, you aren't changing their spec, only adding a new namespace for a particular need -- and now you namespace modules are the proper and accepted way, in XML, to add functionality to a schema you don't control!
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
The issue isn't about having Word read a file.
The issue is about allowing another program to read and edit a file created in Word, while maintaining the formating and fonts and so forth.
Before thy became power mongers otherwise http specifications would have never got off the ground. and we might have two internets a MS one and one that struggled with cascading style sheets and various browsers with broken formats.. oh wait...
Ummm.. I mean... Sheeh... MS... *sigh*...
I don't like them at all...
First, remember that file formats in general are patentable. The ASF video format is one example.
Some might say: "But that's a binary format."
Doesn't matter. Microsofts Office-xml format has plenty of binary data. They uuencode it so that it's official XML, but it's still encrypted or command content, not cleartext.
What if Microsoft embedded an ASF video in the word format?
They'd have to uuencode it first, then stick it in. Would this suddenly make the ASF format non-patented? no. And once parts of a format are patented, you can't recreate the whole format without negotiating a patent deal with the holder.
Yes, the law is an ass. No, you can't circumvent it with clever words.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
XML checker results
The document appears to be well-formed. What gives?
Once again it's good to be Swedish (tm). Under applicable Swedish law (overruling any EU-directive) there's no entry in patent-regulatory law that data structures may be patented or copyrighted. Several courtcases (one included myself) has proven that you cannot uphold a patent on a datastructure; only on 'active code'. XML is a bit of both, but I'd bet my savings they'd rule it to be a container (ie data structure) which under current law is free for all , published or reverse-engineered (yes, I have the courts ruling on this exact thing ;).
As soon as we adopt the EU-standing on things, this'll be changed obviously.
I'd like to see someone willfully ignore the ms license, create a derivative spec with mods or improvements, and get the product popular enough to gain ms' attention. when sued, make a huge stink about it. pull attention off of the legalese/license law case, and onto the fact that ms is fighting some developer who is trying to improve their "open" standard. we need some hackers who are more than great technophiles. we need some martyrs. some people who'll stand up, and show the lemmings whats going on. i nominate [someone else] to do it.
viva la revolucion.
really?
how do you figure that software doesn't depend on physics? follow the trail, buddy...software->hardware->physics
besides... the definition of engineering doesn't necessarily imply dependency on physics... although, the argument could easily be made
according to www.m-w.com
Engineering is:
2 a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people
b : the design and manufacture of complex products
Finally, someone catches the line that makes this a non-story. It just so happens that Microsoft's licensing terms for these schemas prohibit their use in word processors, spreadsheets or programs that convert to and from such formats. Which means nothing at all has changed except that by publishing the specs on open websites, they're posioning the well so it will be nigh impossible to make clean-room reverse-engineered converters, even in countries that still allow reverse engineering.
In sum, no, you cannot use this documentation to make MS Office XML filters for OpenOffice or other office suites.
Remember, they got that amendment through in the European Parliament. While that is a victory, the EP does not have a whole lot of real power, unfortunately. It's the European Commission that decides. And it's quite likely that they'll eventually endorse a version that doesn't have the good amendments.
The EU sucks. They should make it democratic before expanding it.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Are you sure? My VMware v3.2.0 (P3 1 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM and Windows 2000 SP4) and v4.0.5 (Athlon XP 2200+ with 512 MB of RAM and Windows XP Pro. SP1; P4 3 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM and Windows XP Home SP1) are faster with various Windows OS' than Virtual PC v6.1 in MacOS X 10.2.8 (PowerBook G4 1 Ghz with 512 MB of RAM).
Did you optimize your settings?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
As the author of several GPL's applications, this is entirely false.
A GPL'd application is software with an immune system. You can use it,
copy it, share it, and you are guaranteed that no-one, not even the
original author, will come back and restrict your rights.
It's only when you decide to reuse the software code for your
own purposes that the GPL aspects kick in. This is not
a honeypot.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
More importantly, what the hell is "code page 1252"? Mostly likely this is Microsoft code page 1252, which is NOT the Latin-1 charset I know, as in ISO-8859-1?
Embrace and extend, indeed!
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
According to a previous Slashdot story (also on CNET at http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5069246.html), Microsoft is trying to push toward a more complete DRM technology, quite likely filtering all requests for document access through one of Microsoft's centralized servers.
Since this document format is "open sourced" that probably means there's stuff in there Microsoft isn't telling us about. They likely won't reveal the secret behind their second most popular product line that easily.
That said, I'll be curious to see how this will affect development of OpenOffice and equivalents in the near future. Is it better to try to reverse engineer a Microsoft format (and possibly risk patent infringement) or just go with something else? More importantly, will businesses be willing to adopt it if not every Microsoft product can save in this format?
Is it just me, or even if you could write an app for the schema, the liscense restricts it to
"...distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas."
OO.o, and any other wrod (tm if spelled correctly?) processor, can not direclty rw files of this format, unless thats all it was created for. Now if it used a stand alone program as a plugin, I don't know if that would satisfy their terms.
Seems to me, too many clauses leave unanswered questions and seem to directly attack any competing product, esp. OS.
Software abstracts away the physics. The whole point of software is to avoid directly manipulating electrical pulses. That's why the only time you need calculus is when you are modeling actual physical processes. Sculpture has more in common with engineering than software does.
fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Just because they did something today, does not mean you can conclude on their motives or future actions in a positive light. Given their past record, the anti-MS-group (aka: anyone with brain) has a high chance of being correct.
The answers will come with time.
Hitler did good stuff for his country and was popular and then his motives became obvious to the world...
Get used to being disapointed in waiting for the populace to catch up.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Since when did the nice folks over at Merriam-Webster become experts on engineering or physics?
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License:
...
...
"Except as provided below, 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."
"You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license."
No GPL ?
jump! wait, let me light the ring on fire, jump little doggie!!!
-pyrrho
This schema is patented.
Is it? What's the patent number?
The MS license says that you may need to license patents to be able to read or write the schema, without giving specifics. Perhaps they're bluffing.
In any case, I don't think the schema per se is patentable even by today's PTO, it's just a description, it'd be like patenting a blueprint. Could there be anything patentable in how the schema is used by software to render a document? Only the PTO knows for sure...
-- Alastair
OK... IANAL.
But, how do you patent a schema?
Is this standards compliant XML? If so, how can you put a patent claim on me using the data? Especially if I use standard, off the shelf tools to do so.
I could understand if they claimed a copyright on the schema. But, I don't understand how a patent applies.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
In legal terms, the CAPS is meant as a vocalization and pronunciation guide. In this case, you should shriek in an almost uncontrolled manner with a thick German accent.
:) True. Also italics should be pronounced with an Italian accent and bold text as George Costanza.
The power of Christ compiles you!
<xsd:import namespace="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" schemaLocation="C:\SCHEMAS\vml.xsd"></xsd:import>
They don't seem to provide a working link (there is a broken one) to vml.xsd and there is no way you could count on a system having it in C:\SCHEMAS (particularly on a Linux box). You also are prohibited from modifying the file to fix it.
It also appears their license requirements contradict themselves since they require you to state that you are including Microsoft intellectual property and also preclude you from using Microsoft trademarks ("Microsoft" is one of these").
why don't we start a project develop an export plugin from ms office to the open office xml format?
it could very easily act as an open interchange format between all apps.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
It occurs to me that while it's all find and dandy
to publish some set of external formats it falls short
in terms of exposing the actual mechanisms of
implementation, and thus this does Open Office and
its kin no real good, in that the behaviors
implied by the XML are not exposed at all, and
thus the only thing you _really_ care about -
faithful rendering of documents across devices
and implementations - is not guaranteed and may,
in fact be bollixed by patented algorithms
(or merely hidden ones.) Oh yes, and the requirement
for particular fonts may require extra
expense in non-Windows distributions.
I believe this just as true for Word as Excel.
I am also amused by the license terms - it seems
that Microsoft knows how to keep others from
"embracing and extending" its standards by providing
a fundamentally non-extensible framework. Of
course, Microsoft will defend this by saying
they're protecting their users from incompatible
implementations, blah, etc.
They don't want people to make changes to the format.
That defeat the purpose of having a set file format if every coder with a keyboard added his or her own tags to it and started calling the files standard.
The only restriction their license for the patent appears to impose is one forbidding "sublicensing". An implementation released into the public domain would comply as it would involve no licensing at all.
The license for the specification forbids the creation of derivatives but it cannot forbid the creation of an entirely original work expressing the same ideas.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Is this simply a compressed version of the internal XML? Even OpenOffice compresses the data before saving it to file. Otherwise, the document files would end up being HUGE!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
As someone who has spent some time reverse-engineering the old Office formats for KOffice, I can tell you that the above paragraph means I will not be touching this with a barge-pole.
Even if I felt like reverse-engineering any binary they may have in there. Anyone that's been there *knows* that MS will not publish enough for you to get to a complete emulation.
Shaheed
We all know that HTML is cross-platform, has nice features for formatting, etc. My resume looked great. Plus, I don't own Microsoft office, and I don't pirate software.
*Everyone* I sent it to asked me to resubmit it in Word format. The stupidity of this makes me angry to this day. If you have microsoft word, you also have a web browser. Period. Furthermore, it's probably IE, and my resume looked great in IE. I guess HR types and recruiter types couldn't be bothered to double click on the file.
One of the recruiters I sent it to decided to be "helpful" and convert the HTML document to Word using the crappy built-in HTML converter. Needless to say, I'd be embarrassed to send that to anyone, it looked so horrible.
I ended up having to borrow a friend's computer to write my resume.
Has anyone else had the same problem?
how many of you open source zealots said microsoft wouldnt open the specs on xml for office? c'mon, dont go hide behind the couch now that they followed through.
After many episodes with MS Word and OOo, you know what I've found? Lyx and Latex are still the champ.
The major reason why MS Office is so popular is because all it's formats are closed. A company cannot switch to a competitor. The vast majority of Microsoft products are either inbuilt, or lock the user with formats or compatability. Microsoft's great software realisation is that you don't need to make great products if you make sure that people can't use anything different.
Whilst they already may have a very large market share, if there's suddenly 100% open specs, then Word's market share will shrink. People can quite easily undercut the cost. Whilst some PHBs might go for MS, if another word processor offers 100% compatability for a tenth the price... Well, money speaks loudly.
Which is why I doubt Microsoft's intentions. Office isn't really that good a product. It crashes, for one. Look at, say, Warcraft III. A vastly more complex piece of software that is incredibly more stable. Whilst word processors may take a lot of coding, if the standards were truly open, then MS would have to compete on a level playing field. And I can't think of a single software program, on a level playing field, they've produced that is better than the competition.
Compare Apache to IIS. Compare ASP to PHP. Compare IE to Firebird. None of Microsoft's software is outstanding in any technical way. When not bundled in with the OS, or locked in with compatibility issues, MS loses out.
Whether these schemata are sufficient for someone besides MS to get a suitable XML document to render on the screen or the printed page in exactly the same fashion that MS does?
The reason I ask is that earlier complaints about Word not being an open documented format were directed to an RTF specification at Microsoft.
But the specification was insufficient for anyone who wanted to know how a Word document would be rendered - for that there were hidden rules in Word's codebase, rules that would change over time, or from platform to platfrom (ask anyone on a Mac).
"Provided by the management for your protection."
my original post used the totally made-up "schemae"
All I saw was the "XML Schemas" not the screw-up.
Resolution: I will not use any word in a Slashdot post that I can't pronounce.
schema (SKEE muh), pl. schemas (SKEE muhz). A stream of bytes describing rules for validating any document written in a given XML application. (Usage: The W3C always uses the plural form schemas instead of schemata (skee MAHT uh) when referring to more than one XML Schema object.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
They observe the usages of words. If they see people calling programming engineering, then it is. Definitions are defined by the way people use words, not the other way around.
There is a world of difference between
using a work and having access to the
source code, which implies the ability
to create derived works. The binary use
allows a work to be copied, much as one
might distribute music. The source use
allows one to derive, create new works
based on the original.
In the case of GPL'd work, both uses are
a grant and a gift by the author to the
community: a commercial work is far more
restrictive since it limits the binary use
and makes no source use possible at all
except under specific cases.
So if a GPLd work is a 'honeypot', this is
only by comparison to a work placed entirely
under the public domain, or under a BSD-style
license.
The GPL is, I maintain, a kind of immune system
for software works, and it's one that I use for
the majority of my software today (in the past
I used more liberal licenses.) Using the GPL I
can justify releasing the results of years of
hard work for "free", knowing that it will
benefit those in the community who are also
willing to either spread my work, or extend it
for free, while protecting me (as a commercial
software author) from my competitors who might
seek to repackage and resell my work without
due benefit.
This is not a honeypot: there is no fraud, no
intention to switch-and-bait, indeed the very
basis of the GPL is to render this impossible.
Control over software lies with those able to
create it, us programmers. Innovation comes from
a fundamental need to build the best solutions to
the problems we face, and to suggest that the GPL
can 'inhibit innovation' is simply wrong. MS are
attempting to counter the free software movement
precisely because it is a fountain of inovation
that threatens the very existence of the MS
hegemony, the very survival of a machine that feeds
on the desperation of people for decent software.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
That is utter bullshit (the sculpture statement).
I believe that what you are trying to say comes more under the definition of "not reinventing the wheel."
The whole point of software is to enable you to accomplish a task (or accomplish it more easily), AC, not to avoid manipulating pulses.
Almost all software builds on the work done by other software, but somewhere in the pile of software that you are building on, there is software that directly manipulates these electrical pulses.
So, yes, you build on what others have done to avoid directly manipulating electrical pulses, but, AC, that is definately not the point of software - if there is no other way to implement the functionality, i assure you that you will be manipulating pulses (how do you think that the firmware in chips works? yes, firmware is software.).
The term "engineering" doesn't specifically mean "electrical engineering" or "mechanical engineering". Rather it implies complex design.
Ever heard of a "Software Engineer"? He/She is involved with the design of software - it is the job of the Software Engineer to make sure that the end result will fulfil the functional requirements and will be scalable and extendable. It is very different than a software developer or a programmer (unfortunately, the term Software Engineer is often incorrectly used interchangeably with these), who build something to fit within a design (or hack something together to accomplish a task).
Some sculpture does have a great deal of mechanical engineering involved - e.g. how do i make the bottom support the top. However, any significant piece of software, if it is to be viable on a large scale, absolutely needs proper *engineering*.
then someone using your program isn't licensed to modify it.
But from the microsoft licence we have:
IANAL but this means to me that if the XML reader/writer was compiled as a library, all parts of your program except for the XML library could be under any licence you like!
Provided it complied with the MS specification, who would want to go around changing the file formatting code anyway?
(Forwarded from Patents list)
t en tlicense.asp
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Patents] MS Office 2003 XML patented
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:11 +0100
From: Carsten Svaneborg
Organization: www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de
To: patents@aful.org
Hi! Just came across the following:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpa
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License
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.
So usage of MS Word XML files requires a patentlicense.
:
You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license
terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this
license. You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
The licence is royalty free, but GPL 7 requires the right to sublicence
patent rights to the people who obtain a GPL program from you.
so in other words Microsoft is using patents to prevent GPLed programs from
accessing the XML format that MS Word will be using.
This is very good timing, and goes to show how important it is to ensure
that the software patent directive has articles that protects
interoperativity from consituting patentinfringemet.
--
Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
http://www.softwarepatenter.dk
They don't allow any modifications or derivatives of the schema without permission
Why do you need to modify their schema? Are you also going to modify Microsoft Word to work with your schema modifications? If you need additional nodes in an xml instance that aren't covered in the schema, then reference whatever schema those nodes are defined in.
There's a couple issues here:
1) The clause forbidding you from modifying and making derivatives of the specification. Well, certainly, the specification is copyrightable and MS is within their rights to make this demand. Any reverse-engineered description of the file format would not be covered by this clause
2) The part claiming various restrictions on implementing the specifications. This one's just plain strange. MS doesn't say they've patented the format. Nor do they say that they haven't. They simply suggest that they _might_ have. And if you want to be covered if they have, you've got to accept their terms. Which include not mentioning their name, no sublicensing, including the clause, etc.
IF they have a valid patent, they can enforce this. They can enforce it even if you never looked at the specification. Even if the format was reverse-engineered by a couple of guys from Elbonia who'd never heard of Microsoft until you showed them the files. Wouldn't matter -- if you wanted to read&write Word files, it'd be their way, or the highway.
If, on the other hand, they don't have a valid patent, you can read their specification and implement away. As long as you don't incorporate the spec into your work, copyright can't prevent you from writing an implementation. You can claim compatibility with Microsoft Word or Office (under trademark fair use). You don't have to include any verbiage of theirs. You can print out their license with nontoxic inks on soft paper and use it as it is best intended.
So which is it? Well, Microsoft isn't referring to any particular patent number, so I suspect their license is 95% FUD. The other 5% is that they probably have an application in with the USPTO which covers some either obvious, overbroad, or non-novel things in the Word file format, which will probably be approved because the USPTO approves everything. IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, there's certainly no advantage in accepting the license until Microsoft at least provides a patent number demonstrating that you're actually _getting something_ for accepting their restrictions.
I just got done coding up a Word-targeted document and as "close" as I could come was to work it up in RTF, and that was pretty damned close. I got their full spec and dug through it a bit and it seems like nearly every feature available I could think of that was available word was -also- available in the RTF specification.
Further, modern Word reads it like it was a native document and doesn't complain when you save it back as RTF.
Why is that, I wonder? Made me wonder how much different the binary/"proprietary" format was from the RTF -- just some binary representations of the same things perhaps?
while protecting me (as a commercial software author) from my competitors who might seek to repackage and resell my work without due benefit.
/. thing, I don't see the difference in the use of honeypot. MS is not trying to fraudualently convince everyone to use their licence, just giving everyone a nice reason to do so.
I don't buy this argument. What keeps a competitor from obtaining a copy of your product and rereleasing it as is for less than you sell it for? If, as an author, you release software under the GPL, you must realize that it is released for the good of all and you should have no expectation of due benefit. That is THE POINT of the GPL. A few companies have been able to leverage this into a way to recoup investment, but for the most part the companies making money on the GPL are hardware, or consulting businesses.
If all software were GPL'd, it WOULD inhibit innovation. It would not suppress innovation like a monopoly, but it would inhibit innovation. Like it or not, money is what rewards and encourages innovation. Yes, innovation does come "from a fundamental need to build the best solutions to the problems we face," but without financial support, the only innovators would be hobbyists. The whole internet boom was created by the hope of finicial reward, and without that hope, we would probably talking to each other on a BBS right now (if at all).
But, as I stated earlier, GPL'd software should get financial support from hardware and consulting businesses. But that support would only reward inovations related to those areas.
Yes, there is no fraud in the GPL, nor did I intend to imply there was. But I don't think there is any fraud in this MS license that has also been called a honeypot. Other than the fact that it is a MS vs
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
Though Webster indeed marks the plural as schemata, but my Latin dictionary shows the entry "schema, -ae, f. Aspect, shape, figure (Plautus, Amphitrion 117)". So Plautus agrees with the original post.
Is this the FULL specification that MS will adhere to, or is this a minimum specification, with their pwo proprietary "extensions" that are not published? One has to ask, because of their credibility problems.
You mean like the DMCA provides a loophole for interoperability. Can you think of a use for the DVD file format besides interoperability? As far as Judge Kaplan is concerned, interoperability only applies between two programs, not the data they communicate with.
Or it could also work well if you're in a wheelchair and have to keep fighting with your right arm.
For once, it seems that Microsoft is doing the right thing. It might not be altruism that's motivating them (more like the sound of a dozen foreign governments moving to open source or threatening Microsoft that they'll move to open source), but I'm not going to hold it against them. IANAL, but it looks like the Patent license (which they stipulate for software that will read or write documents conforming to the schemas) is compatible with implementations that are open-source (obviously not the GPL, though).
Also, patents in Sweden grant exclusive _commercial_ rights to an invevtion. For personal, research/educational and other non-commercial use one is allowed to use any patented technology.
I have no idea how that will change though, I hope it won't.
Plural of schema is schemata
The Raven
...is the correct plural of schema. Schemas is also ok.
So, Gates has gotten religion, and decided to open up his proprietary file formats because ... why? Beats me, but somehow I don't think it's going to add up to anything good for the non-Microsoft portion of our industry. Call me paranoid if you like: but there's a hook in that bait somewhere, and I for one am in no hurry to bite!
[this
Read the legal restrictions in the link.
/begin tinfoil-hat
/end tinfoil-hat
[Quote] There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform...
Simply put, by publishing the "standard" but preventing it from being *USED* as a standard, Microsoft can now BLOCK reverse enginered products from interroperating.
"Your honor, we published our _stnadard_ with clearly stated patent licensing restrictions. We contend that the defendants did not reverse engineer the material but simply excerpted the information from our publication. There was no clean-room so we want an injunction against the distribution of this [theiving] competitive product."
By publishing the format but *NOT* opening the standard for use Microsoft effectively casts any conformant implementation into question, and gains a club with witch to beat open software implementations to death in court.
And even so, only the premium (dearly expensive) versions of the Word product will create the XML output anyway.
The only real answer is to walk away.
"the only wining move is not to play" -- sappy over-anthropomorphized computer from Wargames (but it had a point... 8-)
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Perhaps one of these is the "Gaul" you're looking for?
:-)
If not, err, move along, these are not the Gauls you're looking for.
BTW
gaul
gall
www.clarke.ca
What if Microsoft embedded an ASF video in the word format?
Then you say "sorry, this part of the document can't be read" and skip over it. Who'd save video data in WP documents anyway? (And if it was a dummy video just for patent's sake, you treat it as binary data and don't try to parse it as ASF, problem solved.)
After many episodes with MS Word and OOo, you know what I've found? Lyx and Latex are still the champ.
That's useless for this crowd, because you can't impose a research/educational restriction on GPL software.
Now if you use their format without upholding their conditions, you're a criminal, even if you figured out the format yourself.
A minor legal quibble: there's no such thing as criminal patent infringement, at least not in the United States. Patent infringement is a civil matter.
What ??? No indemnification
Now SCO is going to get mad at Microsoft !
So write your code as a module/library, and you have nothing to worry about.
Did any of you read the actual Microsoft patent statement?
Its open, as long as you don't use it.
Sad but IMO true!
hany
In this Danish article, Microsoft confirms that the GPL isn't compatible with their license. I sincerely doubt this is a coincidence.
MS also has released documentation for the RTF specification. However, if you look at this in detail you will soon release that they have only released enough information make it appear open. Many tags are given such brief descriptions without any examples that you cannot hope to guess what their purpose is.
So, my question is this documation of the Office formats like the RTF specification (i.e. worthless) or is it a complete specification with every tag explained 100% with examples (i.e. like the HTML specification)
The idea is absurd. How on earth would you patent an XML Schema?
I think MSFT would find it a little difficult to fight that court battle.
Besides, it would be super easy to get around the problem even if their patent turned out to be enforcable. A program like Open Office would simply need to have it's own XML schema and an XSLT save filter. Allow thrid-party XSLT to be loaded in and selected at save time.
Open Office could be distributed without violating the suggested patent. The XSLT could be bolted on dynamically (e.g. suck it down over the network straight from the save dialog). For those that don't know, XSLT is a transformation language used to trasform XML of one schema to XML of another schema. See the spec for more details.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator