Microsoft Opening Office XML Formats

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."

Comments

Nope, too little, too late. :)

[caluml]

No, no matter what they do, we'll still hate them, right? :)

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[christurkel]

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.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Etyenne]

Not necessarily, but there is plenty to hate with MS beside their files formats.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Ckwop]

Where's the catch? I mean, there has to be for MS to open up one of the keys to its kingdom. Even if Open Source apps can't use it, commercial ones like WordPerfect can. MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on. That doesn't sound something MS would want to do.

It's the lesser of two evils for Microsoft. The thought of being excluded from the government contracts for not being open would probably make Microsoft's management squirm.

The reason being is that we would probably see the widespread deployment of some non-MS office suite as a result and this would work towards loosening their strangle-hold on the desktop productivity suite.

By opening formats, they can get in on these contracts. So while it may still damange their business model it will damage it less than not opening formats.

Simon.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

The catch is that in the short term the States of Massachusettes will continue using Microsoft products, since the reason MS opened up their format was bcos to comply with the state's policy. But in the end, this is good for competition and overall a Good Thing (tm).

Now interoperatability will no longer be a problem, we'll start alot of alternatives to Office, including in other OS platform. So the effect of this move goes beyond Office alone, it also promotes the usage of altenative OS platforms! Nice one Bill, you finally did good this time round.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[crazy blade]

MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on. That doesn't sound something MS would want to do.

Yes indeed. But think about it: do they really have a choice?

Since governments are requiring use of open standards, it seems only reasonable that they would be forced to do that. Every corporation has transactions with government(s), so they would be forced to either support some other office format, or open up their own. Of the two options, opening up their own format is the smarter one: given their current dominance it is more likely that other office suites will employ it for reasons of compatibility, which removes the stress and cost of adding support for an open format from MS. In addition, MS can keep developing its format and let others play catch-up every time it rolls out some new version of it.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Directrix1]

The catch is they'll get the contracts signed, and they will release the schemas for the future versions of Word Documents, but after this revision they'll probably rename Word to something else to get out of their obligation.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[hey!]

Well, a lot depends doesn't it?

It isn't enough to say that the file formats are open and available to open source develpors, if the features the file format supports are patented. For example, suppose that Microsoft had patented pivot tables. An open source spreadsheet could read the file, and recognize the pivot table, but have no recourse other than to throw up a note in the user's face saying something to the effect, "This space is supposed to be occupied by a pivot table, but we don't do them."

Now, that said, the patent game might have have started to late for Microsoft, in that the things that matter most to the users might already be in the public domain.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[pHatidic]

This is a huge mistake for microsoft. What is to prevent everyone from switching to openoffice if everything interoperates perfectly? Also, what does this mean for OASIS? I'm not complaining but this is rather...unexpected.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

What's to hate?

[xml]
[cdata]SDLK3492911%^&^&^$#@$##@$@$@#$#@LL,,[/cdata ]
[/cdata]

[/xml]

The friggen thing is documented!

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Custard]

This is a huge mistake for microsoft. What is to prevent everyone from switching to openoffice if everything interoperates perfectly?

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.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[SanityInAnarchy]

I've seen two good "catches", but let me propose another one -- trusted computing. They can open the document format all they want, but even if they only use standard PGP encryption, they can still lock it down later by making certain "copy-protected" documents available only to a trusted copy of Word running on a trusted PC.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[mukund]

FUD. It sometimes helps to read the linked pages.

Q. The patent license associated with the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas states that "Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas." What does this statement mean and to what specific patents and/or patent applications does this statement relate?

A. As an industry leader in the design and development of innovative computer technology, Microsoft has made a significant investment in research and development (R&D). With an annual budget of nearly $7 billion, Microsoft's R&D commitment is among the highest of the world's major technology providers, both on an absolute basis and as a percentage of sales. Like other major technology providers, Microsoft routinely applies to governments around the world to obtain patents on our inventions. A patent establishes ownership of an invention, enabling the patent owner to benefit commercially from investments in innovation. A patent is granted if government patent examiners conclude that an invention is a true innovation compared with existing technology. Microsoft has been awarded thousands of United States patents, and our worldwide portfolio continues to grow.

Under the patent license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, Microsoft offers royalty-free rights both to its issued patents and patents that may be issued in the future as an outcome of the patent process. To learn more about Microsoft's intellectual property policy and to find links to government patent offices, we encourage you to learn more about Microsoft Intellectual Property at the Microsoft Web site.

We have chosen a simple and straightforward licensing approach that should appeal to a wide variety of potential licensees because it broadly covers all applicable patents and patent applications instead of only those that are enumerated.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Jason Earl]

The point that you are missing is that Microsoft isn't really competing with WordPerfect or OpenOffice.org in the office suite arena. When it comes to office suites Microsoft is primarily competing with old versions of MS Office. Most MS Office users are still using MS Office 2000 (or earlier) that don't read the fancy new XML formats. If Microsoft can get the U.S. (and other) governments to adopt their new XML formats then millions of MS Office users will have to upgrade to a new office suite that reads the new formats. Some of these folks might take advantage of OpenOffice.org or WordPerfect's ability to read these file formats (assuming that these programs do a fairly good job of reading and writing these formats), but most will simply purchase new copies of MS Office.

When Microsoft changed their MS Office formats in Office 97 lots of Microsoft customers were very very upset. This time around Microsoft knew that it couldn't force customers into a format change, and so it is doing everything in its power to convince folks to start using the new formats. Everyone deals with the government, and so making the XML formats a government standard actually works in Microsoft's best interests. The fact that the formats are open is basically a red herring. Microsoft knows that its competitors are going to reverse engineer their formats no matter what happens. Microsoft also knows that using the patents that they have offensively would be an expensive PR disaster. Lots of large organizations would get nervous about MS formats if Microsoft started suing people.

Microsoft wants people to use their XML formats. The fact that this also will help keep OpenOffice.org's formats out of the government sector is nothing more than a bonus. Microsoft is far more worried that people will continue to use Office 97 indefinitely than it is about OpenOffice.org taking over the world.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[zurab]

Under the patent license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, Microsoft offers royalty-free rights both to its issued patents and patents that may be issued in the future as an outcome of the patent process.

I don't see the magic words there like: sub-licensable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable. Maybe they do this in the actual license, but it doesn't say that in the paragraph that you quoted. Without it being sub-licensable and irrevocable, it's no good for GPLed and other free software.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Long-EZ]

Word and Excel are very capable, mature office programs. Open Office just doesn't feel right yet

Well, I guess what feels right is very subjective. I've used both, and OpenOffice "feels" a lot better to me. But I generally think that open source software feels better than the big expensive shrink wrapped applications that hassle me with seven page EULAs, install a bunch of copy protection crap and generally assume that I'm guilty of copyright infringement when I'm not. Open source software feels more friendly to me. And OpenOffice applications feel very polished and work very well. At least they don't allow macros to have access to the system files on my PC, send email, etc.

When is a word processor not a word processor? When it's functioning as the kernel for DOC malware.

Like so many others, I'm waiting to find out why Microsoft opening their XML formats is a bad thing. I feel paranoid being so skeptical, but after being consistently dicked over for 20 years, some skepticism seems justified.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that would be much of a problem, since the primary reason that the support for Word documents is so important for other office suites is that people send Word documents to each other.

Unless of course it's available to any trusted copy of Word on any trusted PC. However, if this were made the default, that would probably be blatantly anti-competitive enough that something would get done about it.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

What are proprietary document formats but a 'security through obscurity' form of disabling competing technologies? I don't trust Microsoft farther than I can spit; this faux generosity portends just what you say - MS has developed their DRM strategy to the point where they feel their business plan no longer requires maintaining proprietary formats. Be afraid.

Microsoft compete on the merits? Hahahahahaha.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[rnd()]

I just downloaded the latest OpenOffice the other day and used it to open some spreadsheets and word processing documents. Admittedly there are some weird design issues (such as why OO decided to make the format cell screen entirely different from Microsoft Office and why they left off the 'wrap text' option)... And in the word processor bulleted lists look terrible on screen (though they print fine)...

But all in all I was quite impressed by the feel of both programs, and I decided that I'll be booting into Windows a lot less often because of it.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[acroyear]

actually, i'm thinking the other way around -- is it OpenOffice's (or StarOffice's or WorkPerfect's) job to duplicate every single feature in MS Office?

If the XML being imported has a section that is based on a feature that OpenOffice has not implemented, should OpenOffice therefore be modified to duplicate MS Office on that one feature when no OpenOfficer user has really requested it so far or it requires a major refactoring effort to fit it in?

I don't think so. The 80-20 rule still applies, and anybody using an MS Office feature that relatively obscure really has no interest in exchanging their stuff with an OpenOffice user. The two aren't meant to be 100% clones of each other; no two products should.

In fact, if OpenOffice WAS a 100% feature-compatible version of Word, I likely wouldn't use it because Word has way too much crap I don't need, don't want, and couldn't figure out how to use even if i did.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[mingot]

Well, I guess what feels right is very subjective. I've used both, and OpenOffice "feels" a lot better to me. But I generally think that open source software feels better than the big expensive shrink wrapped applications that hassle me with seven page EULAs, install a bunch of copy protection crap and generally assume that I'm guilty of copyright infringement when I'm not.

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. :)

[hey!]

WRT to the above statements, it still doesn't say you will be allowed to match Microsoft Office's features. Only that you will be able to use any file format ideas that they have patented.

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. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, this is like when Microsoft said Windows 1.0 would run fine on top of any DOS. But then they turned around and embedded fake error messages to discourage users from using any DOS other than Microsoft's.

We all know from experience what it means when Microsoft says it's going to be compatible, play nice, and be open. And that's why we're laughing at you.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[chill]

In the letter to the European Union's Interchange of Data between Administration (IDA) commission, there are these lines:

The technical documentation is available on the Internet for anyone to copy and read

The schemas are based on the W3C standard for XML

The license is royalty-free

The license is perpetual

The license is very brief and available to anyone

I believe that covers your questions about "worldwide" and "perpetual".

However, the license itself plainly states you are not allowed to sub-license. The only case for revocability stated is: "Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation."

However, it does seem quite broad:

"Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas."

I can see an LGPL library for handling MS-OFFICE formats. Also, remember the GPL addresses copyrights and NOT patents, which this license covers. You right your own code, it is your copyright, not Microsoft's.

-Charles (IANAL)

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Doc Ruby]

Is that letter to an EU committee legally binding? Why not put those specific statements, common in such open licenses, in the license itself, which is legally binding?

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[after fallout]

I think this is exactly what is happenning. Microsoft owns the office suite arena. As of right now they have nothing to really worry about in any of the other office suites. The only thing that they have to think about is all the users of older versions of MS Office.

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. :)

[mortonda]

Is that letter to an EU committee legally binding?

Most probably. Look up the term "promissory estoppel". If MS turned around on this letter, they would get roasted by this common law concept.

Of course, IANAL.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

latantly anti-competitive enough that something would get done about it

Um, you are aware of history?

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not open. If you use the format, Microsoft can then take any technology you have made and incorporate it into the format. Then, if you want to sue them for misappropriating your technology, you lose your license to their so-called open format and thus are liable for ad infintum royalties, licensing fees, and suddenly having misappropriated Microsoft's tech. This is not open. This is a strangehold on any would-be licensor. You lose a hell of a lot more than you could ever gain by falling for this Microsoft shell game. This is not open.

Way too little, way too late.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for someone to write a free plugin for previous versions of Office that will read/write the new XML format.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Tough Love]

I can see an LGPL library for handling MS-OFFICE formats.

Not if all the Openoffice developers have to sign a license directly with Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn't allow sublicensing, the patent restrictions are unacceptable for open source and thus the Microsoft formats do not meet Massachusetts' or EU's criteria for openness.

Which of course we need to point out to the individuals responsible.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[soulhuntre]

MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on. That doesn't sound something MS would want to do.

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.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[chill]

If you read the fine print, just by putting the link to MS' license and a one-line statement about "this product contains Microsoft stuff..." that is acceptance of the license.

They don't require signatures, lawyers, etc.

Similar to the old BSD-style and OpenSSL style licenses.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Surye]

Are you kidding me? You have any idea how much MS relies on name recognition? "Word" is it. You call it something else, you're starting from square one.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Trejkaz]

The OpenDocument format is going through OASIS, which pretty much anyone can join to help guide the direction of that format. Microsoft's format, on the other hand, can't be guided by anyone but Microsoft. So in their case, "open" doesn't really mean it's open, and that's the catch.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[CAIMLAS]

of course. This hardly fixes all the technical and philosophical problems with MS products.

Not only that, but I'm betting that a full implimentation of this "microsoft XML standard" will in fact not work properly - I'm guessing Office2003 doesn't comply with them properly itself, based on previous experiences with Microsoft standards.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[zurab]

If you read the fine print, just by putting the link to MS' license and a one-line statement about "this product contains Microsoft stuff..." that is acceptance of the license.

This is similar to what MS tried to do with other licenses (Sender ID) in the past as well when they try to pass something as "open." Well, technically, it's "open" but it's not usable in the Free and Open Source Software environments. If I cannot sublicense the patent, then I cannot allow redistribution of the program without Microsoft's permission.

IOW, if Microsoft decides to change its patent terms at some point in the future and make them stricter, which they are free to do, any new or newly derived programs would have to be bound by that new patent license. For example, if developer A accepted the MS patent license now and wrote a program, then MS changed their license to a more strict wording to disallow free implementations, etc., then developer B tried to improve the program written by developer A, developer B would be liable for patent infringement unless he separately licenses the patent from Microsoft under the new licensing arrangement possibly disallowing free redistribution, etc. i.e. try to make your format a de facto standard, then change patent licensing agreement and exclude everyone who you don't like.

At the very least the patent license has to be sub-licenseable, but most likely irrevocable too to be considered a truly open standard that is freely redistributeable now and in the future.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[elgaard]

>Also, remember the GPL addresses copyrights and NOT patents, which this license covers.

The GPL does address patents:

From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html preample:

==
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
==

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Long-EZ]

not the feel that most software consumers care about

Did you read the rest on my message, where I commented on the technical and user interface issues that I felt were better in OpenOffice?

Simply wishing that everyone shared the same hatred for MicroSoft is not going to put linux on very many desktops.

Uh, no. But lower total cost of ownership, stability, much better security, less installation hassles, open file formats, and respecting the users instead of viewing them as a captive source of revenue will go a long way toward winning desktop installations for Linux. Based on my positive experience, I'm still surprised people aren't switching any sooner. I guess part of the reason is they already paid about $60-$80 for an OEM Windows license, even though many probably don't know that because the price is well hidden in the cost of their PC. And I guess they don't know that 80% of the spam and virtually all of the worms and viruses they receive are from compromised Windows boxes, and spyware is not an issue on Linux but it royally screws up Windows machines, and .... Oh yeah, did I mention Bill Gates is the Antichrist and the rest of the Microsoft upper management team are the dark lords of the apocalypse?
:^)

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[zurab]

However, the license itself plainly states you are not allowed to sub-license.

Great. Then you cannot allow redistribution of your program without Microsoft's permission. i.e. it's not compatible with GPL and many other open source licenses.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

"MS would have to compete on merits, not on their monopoly, from now on."

Most people at work here hate Open Office and like MS Office.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say its all too confusing still to finally bring down the hammer..

the fact remains that in some parts of MS the open source movement is still soundly disregarded as being bad for society.. and they're talking to government like that as well.. so whats the REAL story here.

After being continually lied too by Microsoft the fact there are still people out there evangleising them as being good is very sad. Once bitten twice shy. 10000 Times bitten.. well you get the picture.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious solution is to make Office97 document XML compliant! It is easily done as follows:

QED!

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[idlake]

However, the license itself plainly states you are not allowed to sub-license

OK, then it's completely useless.

I can see an LGPL library for handling MS-OFFICE formats.

And how do you propose people use code under the LGPL if they don't get a patent license to go with it?

Also, remember the GPL addresses copyrights and NOT patents, which this license covers. You right your own code, it is your copyright, not Microsoft's.

The GPL/LGPL very much addresses patents. In particular, if the code is patented, it can't be distributed under the GPL/LGPL.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[chill]

And how do you propose people use code under the LGPL if they don't get a patent license to go with it?

You get a patent license, you just can't sub-license.

It goes like this:

Programmer A writes code to read/write MS Office formats, includes the notice required by Microsoft, and distributes the code with a program.

Everyone who downloads/uses the program is covered by the license.

Those that want to use the source, either changing & redistributing or incorporating and redistributing need to separately agree to the MS license -- by including the required notification and link. So don't remove the link to MS' license! How hard is that?

It sounds a lot like OpenSSL to me.

Considering that the patent license is available to anyone, free of charge, just by linking to the license and printing the notice of included code, I don't see the issue.

As far as The GPL/LGPL very much addresses patents. In particular, if the code is patented, it can't be distributed under the GPL/LGPL. goes, you're wrong. Read it again. I quote the Preamble of the LGPL:

"Therefore, we insist that any patent license obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full freedom of use specified in this license."

Which part of the MS licenst contradicts this?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.a sp?url= /library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice .asp

The only questionable part is that you may not make derivatives of the MS Schema itself.

-Charles

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[idlake]

You get a patent license, you just can't sub-license.

Yes. This means that nobody else can modify the code and redistribute it unless they also obtain a license from Microsoft.

Everyone who downloads/uses the program is covered by the license.

No, they aren't. They don't have a license. Only the programmer has a license and he can't sublicense.

Considering that the patent license is available to anyone, free of charge, just by linking to the license and printing the notice of included code, I don't see the issue.

It is available right now, on a web site, and with conditions attached. Those conditions are already a problem, but they may not even stay the same over time.

Which part of the MS licenst contradicts this?

The fact that you can't sublicense it.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Ogerman]

Most people at work here hate Open Office and like MS Office.

Well, there are a few factors here:

1.) OpenOffice is different. People always react negatively to change that doesn't necessarily have an immediately tangible benefit.

2.) OpenOffice 1.1 does not offer near as many features as the latest MS Office and still has a lot of rough edges. Anyone who works a heavy paper-pushing desk job and is an expert on MS Office is not a candidate for OO yet. Then again, isn't the fact that such jobs still exist an indication of technology's failure?

3.) OpenOffice is much younger than MS Office. It was reborn as an Open Source project in 2001 and has only really become a quality product since the 1.1 release. Analogous to Mozilla, the work being done contains a lot of re-writing and re-architecting. It will be at least another 2 years before OO has it's own "Firefox phenomenon" unless it can garner some extra commercial backing.

4.) OpenOffice aspires to be more than just a clone of MS Office. Because of that, some of the underlying technology development is getting priority and this is not tangible to end users. What will be tangible is when this technology allows OpenOffice components to be embedded in rich web applications.. say in combination with a web-based document processing system that completely re-defines our current notion of "word processing" and "spreadsheets." Think: MS SharePoint on steroids.. for free.

Having said that, I know several people who have gotten used to OpenOffice and don't mind it at all. Fact is, a very large percentage of Office users don't need more than the very basics. Having followed the test releases, 2.0 is going to be a significant step forward in terms of usability and overall polish.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Ogerman]

I think this is exactly what is happenning. Microsoft owns the office suite arena. As of right now they have nothing to really worry about in any of the other office suites.

The open source community needs to learn something from this whole scenario. We may not be able to beat them at their own game. It may be a wasted effort to continue chasing MS's taillights when it comes to office suites. After all, many people / companies aren't upgrading from Office 97/2000, so why should they bother switching to OpenOffice? (hint: they're not saving any money) What we need to do is re-write the rules and offer something completely new and innovative. Instead of trying to compete head-to-head with Office, we should be working to obsolete it with fundamentally superior technology. The whole "office suite" paradigm is thoroughly outdated given the software techniques available today. (think: web-centric, separation of duties, separation of content and presentation, centralization, server-side, etc.)

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Anonymous Custard]

Some of the arguments you made are political / open sauce driven - most consumers don't care about that david vs goliath kind of stuff enough to switch. But you're right that the UI look and feel is totally subjective.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Long-EZ]

most consumers don't care about that david vs goliath kind of stuff enough to switch

That's right. I think Linux and open source do offer a lot of the things the average PC user (not the average Slashdot reader) wants in a PC. It's lower cost, easy to use and secure so it doesn't suffer from Outlook worms and spyware. The problem is, people buy what's available, and so far the PC market is a monopoly. Microsoft does whatever they can to increase their profits, and they don't give a damn about what would be best for their customers. Usually the two are at odds, and the customers get hosed.

The Catch 22 is, the average PC purchaser is not going to buy parts, assemble a PC and install their own OS. They want the convenience and piee of mind they get from buying a PC the same way they'd buy a major appliance. They buy from a large, well known, and reputable PC maker. But given the monopoly that Windows has, the only way to be a large PC maker is to sell Windows PCs. The weasel Windows OEM agreement prohibits PC companies from selling a PC without selling a Windows license. That's exactly the sort of anticompetitive situation that anti-trust laws were designed to prevent. Competition is good.

The average PC user doesn't think any more about their PC's operating system than they do the compressor in their refrigerator. To them, it's an integral part of the PC, and most people don't realize there is a choice. Once Linux grows to the point that people understand the choice, it's all over. But that's going to require that a real choice exists. OEMs are going to have to start selling PCs with Linux, or PCs with no OS. Unfortunately, in the current legal climate, the only way that'll happen will be for consumers to create enough demand that high quality PCs are shipped with Linux and the cost reduction is passed on to the customers. None of the big OEMs will do this because they need to protect their Windows licensing agreement. Someone will step up and fill this market niche. It's the way free markets work (even in the face of blatantly non-freemarket practices).

I still believe the average PC user who only wants email, web browsing, digital photos, and maybe some word processing and doesn't want Outlook worms and spyware will prefer a good GUI Linux instead of XP. Xandros costs money, but there will be a free Linux distro with the GUI friendliness that the market needs. There are several that are close. There is a delay because of the lack of financial incentive with a free distro, but progress is steadily being made.

Analyzed another way, Xandros is already a user friendly GUI Linux for the cost most people spend on antivirus and anti-spyware software. Considering the free open source software that's available for Linux, Xandros still looks like a good deal to anyone tired of Outlook worms and other XP BS.

PS - I like your sig. But I think the original phrase was "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Joey Vegetables]

IANAL, etc., but IIRC the EU operates under civil law, not common law, and promissory estoppel is a common-law concept which may not apply in civil law jurisdictions.

Re:Nope, too little, too late. :)

[Da_Weasel]

The docs are freely downloadable by anyone. However since its an .msi installer its only useful for those MS Windows users.

If you can download it and install it, then you can find a link to the online version of the doc...but good luck doing that on a non-Windows OS...lol

Nooo...

[sandstorming]

Just when you thought you could escape clippy the office paperclip through open source...

Re:Nooo...

[bwalling]

Just when you thought you could escape clippy the office paperclip through open source...

Shows what you know - we're talking about XML, whereas paperclips are made of metal.

Re:Nooo...

[m50d]

Have you looked at half of the things dolts try to use xml for? Paperclips are the least of it.

Re:Nooo...

[hbuschme]

This nice little lad is even harder to bear in the German version of MS Office. The translators named him "Karl Klammer" -- that is really horrible (if you don't understand German: Imagine him with a name like "Paul Paperclip").

Wait....

[bizpile]

...does this make them Communist sympathizers?

Re:Wait....

[sacrilicious]

...does this make them Communist sympathizers?

Definitely un-American at least. And now terrorists will be able to save their documents to valid microsoft formats.

Re:Wait....

[rnd()]

There is nothing communistic about Open Source. It's just a method of creating standards, much like the ISO or ANSI, and a licensing arrangement that facilitates the ongoing evolution of the spec.

Free Software (as in the FSF) is communistic, in my opinion, and should not be confused with Open Source, which is perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Patents

[Elektroschock]

They can do that because they are covered by patents. I do not think that MS gives a positive permission to use these formats.

Re:Patents

[aussie_a]

I do not think that MS gives a positive permission to use these formats.

According to their FAQ:

Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers? A. Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs. Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form? A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program. Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license? A. Yes.

While it may not be legally binding, I'd say it's enough permisssion for the layman, and I think it could be argued in court (of course, you could also just read their license which may say the same thing. But I don't speak ligalese myself).

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers? A. Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs.

It would have been more reasuring if they'd stopped at "yes. At least up until then it was in English.

Re:Patents

[ImpTech]

As has been noted before, these licensing terms are GPL-incompatible. That "notice of attribution" part sounds similar to the issue with the new XFree86 license, and of course there's the whole patent issue.

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.

Re:Patents

[Tony Hoyle]

Sometimes I wonder if the GPL itself could be proven to be GPL incompatible...

Re:Patents

[Dan Ost]

That would imply that the GPL contradicts itself somewhere. I'm unaware of
any contradictions and it seems likely that if there were a contradiction
in the GPL, someone would have found it by now and made a stink of it.

Re:Patents

[Jack Taylor]

While it may not be legally binding, I'd say it's enough permisssion for the layman, and I think it could be argued in court

Even if Microsoft suddenly backtracks on their position, open source developers will still be able to write modules that can encode and decode these formats for at least one or two years (until Longhorn?) as Microsoft can't change their standards that often. If this does happen to be the case, then users will still be able to install these modules on their Linux boxen using repositories like the Penguin Liberation Front, Livna, FreshRpms, Dag Wieers, and Debian Marillat, as these do not worry about patent infringements as much as companies like Red Hat and Mandrake. So Linux is theoretically guaranteed to have perfect compatability with MS Office at the very time when Microsoft won't be releasing new products, hopefully giving Linux the edge when it comes to businesses looking to choose a new OS before the release of Longhorn.

Re:Patents

[Coryoth]

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.

You don't need to BSD license the whole suite, you just need to have an MS Office document reader library that is BSD licensed.

Jedidiah.

Re:Patents

[m50d]

The GPL with a different name becomes GPL incompatible, which is annoying to say the least. I'd like to use the design science license - basically GPL clarified for non-programs - for everything I do, but I know I can't as that would make it GPL-incompatiable.

Great

[savagedome]

open source developers can distribute software built using them, but also that they'll make all future updates available using the same terms

My area code is 666 and I just looked outside. It's completely frozen too. Yup.

Re:Great

[game kid]

My area code is 666 and I just looked outside. It's completely frozen too. Yup.

Well then I guess heck has gone cold; Gosh bless us all.

It seems like a genuine effort on Microsoft's part, but then it seems one needs a law degree to enjoy any real freedom these days.

Besides, it's not like the schemas are the whole programs (though it would greatly help implementors). They're not exactly MIT/GPL-compatible from what I've read...

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 (second link below)

...and they appear to indemnify teh MS from patent lawsuits...

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. (second link, again)

...but I'm no lawyer on these licenses. Have fun:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice .asp (for copying the schema files and documentation)
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp (for implementing readers/editors of schema-based docs/'sheets/etc.)

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

hah! long island?

Microsoft is doint all they can

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that Microsoft is doing all they can so that many governments would consider them as an option in their IT plans.

Re:Microsoft is doint all they can

[agentofchange]

This kind of thing makes the document easier for external systems to parse - a great move. On the other hand did Microsoft just shoot themselves in the foot? the OO project can not just create a document and see what the XML looks like.

Re:Microsoft is doint all they can

[agentofchange]

Doe! I ment the Open Office project CAN just create a .doc and see the XML structure.

Re:Microsoft is doint all they can

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft appear to be betting they can produce a more desirable product than the alternatives, without the need for a file-format 'lock-in'. Only time will tell, but I think they probably can.

For people like me, who care about open standards but don't mind paying for closed-source software (source code is always nice of course :) ), this is actually an incentive to stick with MS Office.

So what does this do for OpenOffice?

[ferrocene]

Seriously. Better document conversion? Smaller file size?

Re:So what does this do for OpenOffice?

[marcushnk]

Yes (or better yet, no conversion needed), and probably..

Re:So what does this do for OpenOffice?

[jimicus]

Better document conversion in the long term, but don't get too excited because there are a lot of Word '9x/2000 format documents out there.

Re:So what does this do for OpenOffice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, OOo is doing a decent job on those (the 2.0 release looks like it'll be much improved in this respect).

A luke warm welcome

[Ckwop]

.. I'd have to look at the license before I rejoice about this news. If Microsoft really did open up it's document format that would be a big bonus for everyone..

But in the back of my mind, I've got a feeling this is "embrace and extend" all over again. They might well give the outward appearence of openness while in fact restricting the license in such a way that it really doesn't change the situation.

I don't know.. i just can't trust a convicted monopolist with this stuff.

Simon.

Re:A luke warm welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

So, then go read it before posting, rather than just blabber here.

Furthermore, the phrase "convicted monopolist" means nothing. It is not illegal to have a monopoly.

Re:A luke warm welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

The license Microsoft is granting is not open. It is still very closed (due to various restrictions found in the license). And, worse, other formats, such as PowerPoint, are not covered at all. It is exactly the sort of license one would expect from a close-source company and convicted monopolist.

Re:A luke warm welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know.. i just can't trust a convicted monopolist with this stuff.

Then I suppose it's just as well you're an inconsequential 'tard who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Hold on...

[Xpilot]

Is this thing GPL-compatible? It doesn't say...all I could find is the following:

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:Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I read the Groklaw version, I'm holding back the celebration.

Huh? Did you perchance mean "Until I read the Groklaw version, I'm holding off on celebrating"?

Re:Hold on...

[Delirium Tremens]

More exactly:

note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program.

Mind the word "program". Readmes likely do not count. You'll have to spell it nicely in the About menu, the splash screen, etc ... and create one if needed.

Re:Hold on...

[zemoo]

This doesn't look GPL compatible: ... so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. Also, isn't it funny that there's a link to the OSI website indicating approved open-source licenses? What does 'open-source purity' matter to them?

Re:Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

"so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas"

Being a restriction beyond what is prescribed within the GPL automatically makes it GPL incompatible.

Re:Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a restriction beyond what is prescribed within the GPL automatically makes it GPL incompatible.

Are you sure? The BSD license has an "advertising" clause and that's not incompatable with the GPL. I believe it's only an issue if there are additional restrictions on modifying and/or redistribution.

#include "IANAL.h"

Re:Hold on...

[oliverthered]

So long as you don't compile the reference schemas into you GPL product there's nothing that Microsoft can do.

Just like if I dynamically link my commercial close source app against a GPL library (e.g. mesa) there's nothing that the FSA can do.

Re:Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:

Original BSD license

This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

Re:Hold on...

[Gorgonzola]

Depends on whether they have included an additional definition of 'program' or not. In all EU jurisdictions there is a legal definition of a 'computer program' that does include README files and such distributed with the code (executable or source). Having a more restrictive definition would open up a whole can of worms in those jurisdictions.

And yes, I do have a law degree and am specialised in IT-law

Re:Hold on...

[xgamer04]

I can't wait till Pamela Jones scrutinizes this.

This is something I definitely want some more "professional" comment on. It will be interesting to see what PJ, the OSI, and maybe the FSF have to say. Hopefully they can relate this in a way I can understand (IANAL, :P)

Re:Hold on...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is something I definitely want some more "professional" comment on. It will be interesting to see what PJ, the OSI, and maybe the FSF have to say.

Pamela is a paralegal, not a lawyer. You go to a technical institute to become a paralegal; it's basically a secretarial position.

Her inexperience shows through frequently. Despite the manu times she's declared the SCO/IBM trial 'over,' it still seems to be chugging along. She's not a lawyer; she's a shill for IBM and now funded by them as well.

Re:Hold on...

[danila]

IANAL, but my guess is the only "incompatibility" is that you can't grant your licensees the permission to use MS formats. They would still have your permission to distribute your code and to modify it, but if they want to distribute the modified code, they would have to include credit to MS. But it isn't really a big problem.

Re:Now...

[aussie_a]

how are we going to demonize Microsoft?

More importantly, how is Microsoft going to demonize us open source commies?

It's the end of the world as we know it

[johnjay]

This was the one thing that kept Microsoft dominant.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it

[sandstorming]

Yup just office. and windows and sql and mouse sales and keyboard sales and server software and handhelds and hotmail and msn search and msn messenger and xbox and games and... You get the idea. I just know bill gates will look like the monopoly man when he gets old!

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain how mouse and keyboard sales help Microsoft continue to dominate the computer world? I do agree about Windows, but hotmail and MSN? Get serious.

Re:It's the end of the world as we know it

[NuclearDog]

(L)users see the Microsoft name on their keyboard, their mouse... even on their monitor when starting their computer up.

When they go out to buy some sort of software to do , what do you think they're going to buy?

ND

Ok....

[gral]

and how much does the Version that creates these "Open" formats cost? Isn't the version that creates these formats the "Professional" version only. Oh wait, OpenOffice.org does these already. :-)

It's a trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't believe it! It's a trap!

the ill logic of microsoft

[deutschemonte]

They think that by spraying gasoline on open source that it will kill it like grass.

Opening up the formats will only make open source solutions more interoperable with the proprietary microsoft formats.

So the F/OSS fire burns stronger.

Re:the ill logic of microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

now openoffice doesn't have any more excuses suck (they're SCREWED).

Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Poingggg]

IIRC MS had patented their fileformats. So, no matter what, if you want to make use of them, you will have to cough up their fees. And if MS decides not to licence FOSS-developers, it will just cut FOSS marketshare. I'm not sure if I like it....

Re:Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you see license fees? Please enlighten us.

Re:Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just go learn what rights patents give and save all of us from having to explain it to you?

Re:Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Halo1]

The license is free and includes a patent license. Just go read the FAQ linked from the story. Yes, there may still be an "evil sinister plan" hidden somewhere, but it's not the patents (unless their FAQ contradicts the actual license).

Re:Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Jonas,

I've not read this yet but I assume the /patent/ license is transferable since end users can be held liable for patent infringement? This seems like MS abusing it's near monopoly on office productivity software and using this software patent license to nullify patent threats from any company running MS software. I'm sure the pharma and biotech companies will be delighted to give MS carte blanche to exploit their patent portfolios with impunity?

Re:Maybe I'm wrong here but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any chance that the patents would hold up if challenged?

Seriously, the only kind of patent on a standards-based file format that might have a chance of holding up is a design patent, and those are going to be hard to justify for a file format.

No GPL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was interested by this section :

"Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license?
A.

Yes. There are many open source licenses available in the developer community. One useful place to review the various licenses that have been approved by the open source community is at Open Source Initiative.

The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. You should check with your legal counsel if you have questions about a particular open source software license."

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt this preclude them being used in GPL works? Wasnt it something like this i.e. an advertising clause, which lead to the forking of XFree86 ?

Re:No GPL?

[jhdevos]

I haven't actually read the relevant portions of the licence itself, but from this section of the FAQ, it would seem you are right.

If you are the orriginal author of some software, you could add an exception to the GPL, sort of analogous to the exception that allows you to use MySQL with PHP. With something like OpenOffice.org, that would be a problem, since it is very difficult to get all the contributers to consent to such a change of licence.

Re:No GPL?

[danila]

It's not a problem at all. In this case it wouldn't be the GPL license that forces people to give credit to MS, it would be the patent law. So GPL would still work, only it wouldn't be sufficient to modify and redistribute the code, you would also need the permission from MS (which you can get automatically by giving them credit for the patents).

This may be contrary to the spirit of Free Software, but not contrary to the legal language of the GPL.

OMG

[mstefanus]

Oh my god I'm daydreaming! Quick, someone.. pinch me!

Re:OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

No, omg.org doesn't have anything to do with this.

wel...

[SQLz]

Hopefully its compatable with the GPL. I figure they basically had two choices, look good and open the format or look bad and loose to open office or other packages. Running Open Office is, in my opinion, along the road to swiching to Linux. MS had no choice.

Re:wel...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The word is lose, first of all.

And I don't think Microsoft is really afraid of Open Office... I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice. It does what I need it to do and how I need it done.

And your comment about the "road to switching" is pretty funny. That would be like saying "Installing and using eMule is "along the road to switching" because it's open source.

Maybe your IPs were banned for a reason?

Re:wel...

[Directrix1]

Thats funny. I went into OpenOffice not expecting it to not be the same. And instead of just continuously bitching about how I couldn't find the options in the same place as MSWord, I read a little documentation. An hour later I was a pro. Its not that hard, but yes you do have to learn it. Its a new interface.

Re:wel...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But can you convince an entire department that they should stop working for an hour to read a little documentation? No. Won't happen.

I'm not going to re-learn how to use a word processor so I can switch from something I know to something I don't.

Re:wel...

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of the world is.

Sucks to be you.

Re:wel...

[ColMustard]

Depends on what you mean by the rest of the world. If you world consists of the open source 'community,' then yes the world is switching. However, that's a very very small percentage of the people in my world, where the vast majority just stick with what they know.

Re:wel...

[blane.bramble]

How did people learn Word in the first place? In the corporate world everyone had to switch from whatever they were using (WordPerfect 5.2, DisplayWrite 4, WordStar 3.3) to Word. Guess what, it didn't stop the company doing business.

For the majority of word processor users, if it takes them an hour to learn how to do what they were doing before (typing, saving documents, printing, spell checking) then you need to address their general computing knowledge. For your power users (secretaries doing mail merge, macro users etc.), if they can't pick up a new product reasonably quickly they're screwed with OS upgrades, software upgrades etc. anyway.

Re:wel...

[Dammital]

I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice

Few people are going to be fully productive after only a day fiddling around with either OO or MSO. They are both *big* programs, with lots of features and layers of cascading pulldowns.

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.

Re:wel...

[tzanger]

And I don't think Microsoft is really afraid of Open Office... I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice. It does what I need it to do and how I need it done.

That's funny, because I prefer OO to MSO now for many things... the only thing I can't stand about OO Calc is how if I select an area and hit ^X for cut, the cursor stays at the bottom right of the selected block instead of the top left... I mean if I must want to move a block over a few places it's a royal pain in the ass with OO. But the other things -- ESPECIALLY database access -- are so much nicer with OO.

Re:wel...

[awing0]

The choice for me was easy, pay hundreds for Microsoft Office, or learn to use a mostly familiar, but different interface. I can't justify spending a week's income instead of just learning Open Office in my spare time. Office 2003 Pro retails for about $400.

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.

Re:wel...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice

Dude, my mom switched from ms office to openoffice without any problems at all.

And you call your self joe hacker at gmail, seesh...

Re:wel...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I don't think Microsoft is really afraid of Open Office... I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice. It does what I need it to do and how I need it done.

I think you're missing the point here. OpenOffice.org is a clone of MSOffice, no better, no worse really. What Microsoft is afraid of, is the fact that OpenOffice.org uses an open XML format, and is prefered for government contracts. Aside from that, it has an excellent price of $0, whereas MSOffice is what, $300 upgrade, $500 full?

Re:wel...

[Anonymous Coward]

You may well be right about OO being a dog to use, I've never tried it so I can't say. But the OO file format appears to have traction with the EU at least.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/06/09/ ScienceStreet http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink/20040612

Which must surely be of concern to MS and even if OO is as bad as you say, if the OO file format gains parity with .doc then it can be adopted by any number of competing applications, Wordperfect, AppleWorks, ThinkFree etc.

New entrants will be able to compete with established players hopefully bringing us new ideas and ever better office suites.

Re:wel...

[SQLz]

Sorry, I'm not a good speller. Obviously you figured out what I was trying to say though. Thanks for pointing it out though, dick.

The reason I say switching to OO is along the 'road to switching' to Linux is because for most companies, the MSOffice to OO switch is going to be harder than the Windows to Linux switch. The concepts you need to master and use a PC ,Mac or say, KDE are the same. You click icons, you make directories, you use a web browser and email program. A lot of people don't use anything else all day besides word, excel, outlook, and IE. You eMule example is not a good example because it wouldn't be the 'killer' app that his holding someone or some group back from moving to Linux.

If a company/agency moves to OO and the employees are trained to use it, what is stopping them from going to Linux when the time for upgrades comes around? Surely training some employees on OO running Linux on the existing hardware is a lot less expensive than updating everything to run Microsoft' s latest software.

Re:wel...

[SQLz]

But can you convince an entire department that they should stop working for an hour to read a little documentation? No. Won't happen.

What the f*ck are they getting paid to do? They get paid to do thier job and if that requires learning some new software then, thats what they do. Jeez, I guess they would rather get laid off or replaced with people who do want to grow, learn, and bring the company in new directions.

Re:wel...

[CerebusUS]

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.

Software licensing costs for MS Office are surprisingly low once you've got about 200 seats to deal with. Add in to that the fact that they include Exchange CALs and you _really_ don't end up saving much money unless you can also ditch your Exchange server. It's _really_ hard to convince upper management to do that, I've tried.

I've also tried Evolution as a front-end for exchange, it's a better solution than was out there before (read: none) but it's still not up to the quality of Outlook for things such as public folders and calendar free/busy schedules. What's funny is that Microsoft's own Entourage for the Mac is similarly bad for those features.

Evolution does a much better job of eliminating email viruses, though.

Re:wel...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot that there is large world outside of the US (and Europe) that never got enslaved by MS totally and are switching (latin America, large parts of Europe and Asia) if not already switched (think China) to open-source.

where the vast majority just stick with what they know.

All the more reason to outsource these jobs to countries where people are willing to learn new things. Can't believe people in developed countries are ready to live till 90 but won't make any effort to learn after they are 20.

Re:wel...

[Tough Love]

I tried using Open Office, and after a day of trying to figure out how to do what I did in MSOffice, I just went back to using MSOffice. It does what I need it to do and how I need it done.

Yeah sure, make a grand claim without a single specific point to back it up. Fact: I use Openoffice every day and it does everything I need it to do, including handling any .doc, .ppt or .xsl formats that happen to come my way.

Re:Now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Relax. They are only making the specs open source, not the code...

GPL compatible?

[John_Sauter]

It's hard to tell, but I suspect that Microsoft's license is not compatible with the GPL. Consider the following question and answer:

Q. Can I distribute a licensed program under an open source software license?

A. Yes. There are many open source licenses available in the developer community. One useful place to review the various licenses that have been approved by the open source community is at Open Source Initiative.

The terms and conditions of these licenses differ in material respects. We believe you can distribute your program under many open source software licenses so long as you include the notices described in the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. On the other hand, some open source licenses may include specific constraints or restrictions that might preclude development under the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema licenses. You should check with your legal counsel if you have questions about a particular open source software license.

Does anybody have any insight on whether or not I could include Microsoft's XML schemas into an existing program which is licensed to me under the GPL, and redistribute the result under the GPL?
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

Re:GPL compatible?

[Sarin]

If it's not compatible with GPL, couldn't people then just write a non-GPL ms-XML plugin for a GPL package, which is downloaded seperate in order to circumvent incompatibility with the GPL?

Re:GPL compatible?

[Haeleth]

couldn't people then just write a non-GPL ms-XML plugin for a GPL package, which is downloaded seperate in order to circumvent incompatibility with the GPL?

That depends, but probably not easily.

Re:GPL compatible?

[Tony Hoyle]

Pretty much. The GPL relies on copyright law. If you're not copying it has nothing to say:

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

(the rest of the license then goes on to contractict this quite openly, but that's a matter for the legal bods).

Re:GPL compatible?

[arodland]

I really can't swallow that one. If an app and a plugin are dynamically linked, then they're two completely separate things, and can be designed separately and compiled separately. A plugin can be loaded by more than one app (just look at some emulators for Windows), and of course apps can load plugins from all different sources. The relation between an application and a plugin isn't any tighter than between an application and data in a particular file format. In fact, plugins are just that, except that the data is code and "API" takes the place of "file format".

Consider that it's possible for me to write a program, and publish it under the GPL, while also publishing a book, titled "The MyApplication Plugin Framework". Any developer out there should be able to write a plugin for MyApplication using this book as a reference, without ever seeing the application itself. This would clearly be a separate act of creation, and could not realistically be painted as a "derived work". As another poster has pointed out, the GPL says that it covers only "copying, distribution, and modification". Writing code to a given spec is none of these; neither is loading or linking a plugin. So where, in the case of a GPL app loading a non-GPL plugin, does the GPL ever have the scope to say anything?

I believe that if you judge by the text of the license itself, and not the FSF's "what do we think our license means" webpage, it's clear that it doesn't apply in this situation.

Re:GPL compatible?

[Igmuth]

To expand on your point. Is loading a plugin really that different from loading a document, be it a word processing document, or a music file you are editing? Heck, even running a perl script is no different.

Re:GPL compatible?

[m50d]

What you judge by is whether it is a derivative work. Which is what the court says, ultimately, and I don't think there have been any test cases with plugins or even dlls. Personally I think if the plugins work with multiple apps then it's not derivative, but if the framework is quite tied to your program e.g. with firefox extensions, which couldn't really be used in any other browser without designing it like mozilla, then they are derivatives. But it's all speculation until it goes to court.

sorry, in advance.

[bagel2ooo]

In Soviet Russia, XML schema open Microsoft!

Before all of the Microsoft bashing begins...

[Villageidiot9390]

This is something that many of us in the Slashdot community have wanted for a very long time. It almost seems as if Microsoft is starting to bend to market pressure. Maybe not as much or as quickly as some of us would like, but everything needs to start somewhere.

On that note, the only one thing that I would worry about is how Microsoft plans to license thier XML schema.

So let's keep on developing all of those great open source applications, and keep the heat on the competition in the software market!

Hooray!

[mistersooreams]

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!

Re:Hooray!

[Abnormal Coward]

if they wanted to be "really" nice they would use the OpenDocument format, instead of inventing there own :o)

To me, this sounds like a PR stunt to win more govement contracts.

I am not going to celebrate yet.

I wonder how easy it is to convert between the 2 ?

Re:Hooray!

[Metteyya]

They should not - they couldn't actually, because MS Office has definitely more features than OOo.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously new around here. After decades of bad behavior, the onus is now on MS to *prove* they have no long-term ill-intent...

They are the master of the sleight-of-hand when writing contracts, I won't be rejoicing until a few competent IP lawyers have gone over this and translated it.

Re:Hooray!

[freemacmini]

I hope you can forgive us being suspicious. They have a history of being sleazy.

I for one wouldn't trust anybody who works at MS to babysit my kids let alone give away their weapon.

License inside a .msi file?

[Carl]

Q. How do I get a license? A. The license is available when you download the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas from the Microsoft Download Center.

Tried to download this thing to see if it had acceptable (re)distribution terms for inclusion in GPL-compatible programs like AbiWord, KOffice or OpenOffice.org. But all I could find was some xsdref.msi file.

How does one open/extract such a thing? Does anybody has the distribution terms as clean/clear text file?

Re:License inside a .msi file?

[Anonymous Coward]

just run it in a windows machine. msi = MicroSoft Installer

Re:License inside a .msi file?

[adler187]

for those of you not running windows here is the license text:

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 © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true.

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: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.

THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.

MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.

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.

©2003-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp

Re:License inside a .msi file?

[IamTheRealMike]

You can use Wine to install MSI files.

Re:License inside a .msi file?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows what an MSI file is, thank you very much. But I don't have Windows!

We won!

[shai_m]

Do NOT underestimate the significance of this!

This is a major loss for Microsoft, as they have been coerced by Mass. (and others, probably) to loose one of their major lock-in mechanisms.

Sure, they have ot GPLed Window$, and Bill has not waved the white flag. But it's a big big move in the right direction.

Re:We won!

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, why is this a loss for Microsoft? Unless of course you are implying introducing OS policies to be a poor business decision.

Secondly, it's lose, not the reference to your mother.

Thirdly, spelling Windows with a $ sign at the end is not big, clever nor vaguely amusing.

And lastly, you are an idiot.

Re:We won!

[archen]

I think perhaps that MS is simply changing their strategy. MS competes with oldever versions of office more than any other software. They want you to upgrade, but you don't. Why is that? Because your current software runs just fine, and you can open stuff just fine. So now MS comes up with a new format and everyone bitches and complains. BUT here's the catch, all the open source people just LOVE the new format and everyone is pushing this new format. So what to do? UPGRADE OFFICE.

Microsoft knows that people have a lot invested in their current formats, and if there is going to be any transition, they're going to have to stick with MS Office to access them. More or less they just secured their own upgrade cycle. I'm thinking MS probably saw this comming down the line with the EU antitrust settlement so opening their formats using XML (which MS just loves now), makes perfect sense. Overall it's still a good thing for competition, even if no one plans on moving away from MS Office

Re:We won!

[Anonymous Coward]

give me a break. even if windows was open source, gnu/linux would never catch up because The Community(tm) lacks the expertise required to understand huge chunks of the code (for example, the pathetic losers on linux-audio-dev haven't figured out how to synthesize a passable plucked string tone, despite the fact that there's hundreds of papers available on the topic).

Re:We won!

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez, yeah, everyone knows it's Micro$oft Windoze, not "Window$". Pathetic!

--

Campaign to raise the quality of trolls!

Re:We won!

[Anonymous Coward]

... synthesize a passable plucked string tone ...

I've never heard a passable synthesised plucked string tone, so your definition of passable must be a little different than mine.

Re:We won!

[Yartrebo]

This is a very shred move by Microsoft. They give up essentially nothing and in exchange get to land government contracts and if any open-source developers are actually stupid enough to accept their license, have them by the balls.

The license is not even remotely GPL compatible (or compatible with pretty much any open license). Major issues include:
- Non-sublicensable.
- Requires agreement to a patent license, which may be changed at Microsoft's discretion (notice that web link in the license).
- It is revocable.

Microsoft can be pretty confident that it won't find its way in its main competitor, OpenOffice, because their license won't allow it, while at the same time it aids them in throwing around FUD.

Don't think so.

[Kickasso]

The license

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.

Please read Groklaw today

[bersl2]

The Future Is Open: What OpenDocument Is And Why You Should Care ~ by Daniel Carrera

Re:Please read Groklaw today

[Eil]

To those who might have skipped over the link in the parent, go back and click on it. Microsoft wasn't feeling charitable today: the European Union is very close to deciding whether to support either OpenDocument (developed by the OpenOffice and KOffice teams) or Microsoft XML as their "official" document format and OpenDocument had the lead, but not by much... Microsoft's XML formats were technically superior, the biggest drawback was that their schema were closed.

So, the fact that they're now open is not particularly good news for the open source community. It's like the browser wars all over again...

err... the catch?

[whowho]

To quote:
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.

So what does that mean? They are "committed" but on the other hand "reserve the right to change"? How is that committed?
Does this mean they can create an update to Office, alter slightly the schemas, close it and/or require royalties, etc?

Re:err... the catch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Basically they are saying that while they are committed to the "Office 2003" XML Reference Schemas, they reserve the right to change the reference schemas of future Office versions... so what holds true today for the "Office 2003" XML Reference Schemas may not hold true for this year's "Office 2005" XML Reference Schemas.

Another thought I had - isn't XML designed in such a way that despite opening up their format like this, couldn't Microsoft still have closed objects embedded inside? In other words, the "open" format works great for plain boring text files, but the moment any of Microsoft Office's "features" are used (say BOLD for example...or if I were less cynical say the embedding of Excel spreadsheets in a Word file) those parts of the document are embedded in a non-open form and become inaccessible to all the Office clones.

Re:err... the catch?

[whitespacedout]

whowho said:
[snip MS licence quote]
> They are "committed" but on the other hand "reserve the
> right to change"? How is that committed?

Well, they are committed to the right to embrace and extend, aren't they?

How it would work?

Well, the inertia to stay with word remains now that the standards are open. Compatible word processing apps would have to track each change to remain compatible. At some point, if MS decides to change the open policy, all the other word processing apps would be left in reverse-engineering (and maybe DRM)-land. Forking off would be a bit harder than the clean break we have had growing these days if MS had simply continued being closed standard.

Let's see how it goes.

GPL incompatible

[internet-redstar]

Of course it's Microsoft...

You can only use the 'patented and copyrighted' scheme when you 'include the notices described in the license for Office 2003'.

This makes it GPL incompatible. Period.

Next!

Re:GPL incompatible

[Richard_at_work]

Answer me this: the GPL is incompatable with pretty much every other Opensource license out there (other licenses may be GPL compatable but that doesnt mean it works both ways), so why should everything be GPL compatable? Thats pretty much the first thing that comes up in discussions on slashdot 'is it GPL compatable?' or 'why couldnt they just use the GPL?'.

The way the GPL is currently written means GPLed projects can take from most other non GPLed projects without giving anything back, which I thought was one of the reasons for opensource?

Re:GPL incompatible

[matastas]

This is going to be viciously unpopular, but maybe the GPL needs to start looking in the mirror and become more BSD-like in its terms.

MS opens up their Office 2003 schema, and they can't use it because of their own terms? Just the sort of ammunition Mr. Gates needs. 'See? We tried to be flexible, but they won't work with us!'

What this might do, however, is move towards a standard document structure that's supported flexibly amongst multiple platforms. Thus, Pages (Apple) and OpenOffice and MS Word all produce the same document, so why do I need to buy MS?

Re:GPL incompatible

[ChipMonk]

Term 1 of the GPL states: You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

Does that make the GPL incompatible with itself?

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going to be viciously unpopular, but maybe the GPL needs to start looking in the mirror and become more BSD-like in its terms.

That would be pointless. For anyone who wants to apply BSDL like terms to their software, BSDL already exists. People using the GPL obviously want something more like, well, the GPL.

Re:GPL incompatible

[CmdrGravy]

I don't see why it should, if people want a BSD licence then they can use the BSD licence or one which is similar to it.

The key reason people would want to use the GPL is to ensure their work isn't just incorporated into someones software and they get nothing back.

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true. No one wants the GPL other a few bearded kooks.

Re:GPL incompatible

[internet-redstar]

In the old days...
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.

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a nice theory but it doesn't contradict what I said. People who want a license more like BSDL than GPL won't be using the GPL. Changing the GPL to resemble BSDL would be pointless.

Re:GPL incompatible

[internet-redstar]

Nope, it explicitly says the GPL needs to be provided. Section 8 can add geographic limitations (as mentioned in another comment), but adding the requirement that a notice has to be included in the program to thank Microsoft or whomever is of course incompatible with the GPL!

Just as it's - for example - incompatible to add the requirement that the software can not be used for atomic weapon deployement.

I would vote to append such a statement to the GPL, but Richard Stallman (while I'm sure he's against the usage of real weapons of mass destruction), choose not to add such a possibility to the GPL as it would - at the end of the day - require you to send a greeting card, donate 1$ to charity, plant a flower, see 3255 notices (and so on) before you could use your entire GPL software distribution.

So the short answer to your question is: no.

Re:GPL incompatible

[polyp2000]

possible way around this?
Suppose these schema's are GPL incompatible. Would it be possible for software such as Open Office to use the schema's but not include them as part of the distribution? for example- if i downloaded my favorite GPL'd office application -would It be possible to have some sort of wizard download the scheme from Microsoft and then plug-in to my chosen package? That way its technically not a part of the distribution...

Nick ...

Re:GPL incompatible

[atari8]

The goal of the GPL is not to give back to other licensing schemes; the goal of the GPL is to give back to other developers and other users.

Re:GPL incompatible

[internet-redstar]

Just checked at freshmeat.net how many 'bearded kooks':

GLP: 19786 projects
LGPL: 2446 projects
BSD (old): 1456 projects
BSD (new): 787 projects

If you want to find it yourself: go to freshmeat.net, click browse, click license, click osi-approved:
And there you are!

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the GPL is "better" than those licenses. Once things flow into the GPL pool, they can never branch back out. If you are the copyright owner you could dual license it, but nobody else has that power to do so.

This prevents companies from taking open source software, "improving" it, and saying "Pay us for a binary that is 'improved', but I'll never give you the changes directly."

GPL forces them to give source to those who buy the binary, and then those people have the legal right to distribute the source right back into the pool.

Re:GPL incompatible

[m50d]

Because the GPL is the only way to have true "copyleft", i.e. you can't put the code in a propriety program. Anything else really doesn't work. If you allow GPL code to be relicensed under BSD, MIT etc. then you lose the copyleft pretty quick. IIRC looking at allowing GPL code to be relicensed under other copyleft licenses was looked at but found to be a nightmare. Anyway, the original intention was that everything opensource would be GPL if you believed in copyleft, not some random copyleft license. Heck, when it was written, there were no other copyleft licenses. So the concern probably didn't arise. The GPL was originally incompatiable with everything else because there was nothing else like it.

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

They (they being the vast majority of people) choose the GPL because of hype, not because they have thoroughly researced their open source license options. Hell, most of them can barely write documentation, and you fully expect them to know the caveats of using a specific license. Preposterous.

Re:GPL incompatible

[gonaddespammed.com]

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?

No. The GPL enforces that everything is given back.

Re:GPL incompatible

[tricorn]

You include the Microsoft-required statement in your copyright notice. Boom, GPL compatible. The GPL allows requiring that copyright notices be left intact. GIve permission for people to remove the Microsoft statement - that way they can take portions of your code and use it in other things that don't (supposedly) infringe on Microsoft's patents.

Re:GPL incompatible

[elgaard]

You could make standalone MSXML2OASIS and OASIS2MSXML programs that read from stdin and write to stdout.
And such programs could be distributed with OpenOffice.org,

Re:GPL incompatible

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Although it would be hard to prove without any doubt that you are right or wrong, there is some evidence showing that you could be wrong: pick some project at random and check if it has some mailing list archives. If yes, search for license discussions (keyword search for "GPL", "BSD", "license" or something similar). In almost all cases, you will find the author(s) of the software defending the GPL for the right reasons, not because of the hype. The authors want their software to remain free and are aware of the differences between the GPL and BSD licenses.

Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML?

[bheer]

I thought XML support in Office was limited to the Enterprise versions (and possibly the professional version). Can the cheaper home/academic versions of Office produce or read XML?

Re:Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML?

[grouchomarxist]

I think that's true. In any case the binary format will probably continue to be default.

I know that the Macintosh version doesn't appear to support XML.

Re:Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well now someone could make a open source plugin to the home and academic versions to support the XML format too.

Re:Can all MS Office editions produce/read XML?

[grouchomarxist]

Well now someone could make a open source plugin to the home and academic versions to support the XML format too.

I'm not sure if that is what this provides. What would you translate the XML to? You'd need to either be able to translate it to an Office binary format or script application to recreate the contents. It doesn't give you the former and I don't know about the latter.

The license

[Dwonis]

Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp

An agrarian view on MS XML format

[Anonymous Coward]

Plowing for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using FreedBSD. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Although we met several fertilization challenges along the way (specifically, FreedBSD's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with FreedBSD, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a labourer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that FreedBSD is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the GNU Preventive License. Part of this license states that any changes to the seed are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" FreedBSD to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our labourers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

I think the biggest thing keeping FreedBSD from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its mercurial requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with FreedBSD, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if FreedBSD switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

I welcome you for your time.

Re:An agrarian view on MS XML format

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm.... FreeBSD isn't GPLed, it's distributed under a BSD licence.

http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.h tml

Basically you can do whatever you like with the code, as long as you retain their copyright notices in any of their code you use.

Many of the utilities and applications in a standard FreeBSD system are GPLed, of course, but the kernel is not.

Re:An agrarian view on MS XML format

[Anonymous Coward]

WRONG!!!

This is not true.. you only need to publish the source code IF YOU ARE DISTRIBUTING THE PROGRAM...

if its for internal use... then FINE!!!

This is true for GPL.. not sure with the BSD license

Re:An agrarian view on MS XML format

[koreaman]

Don't even bohter replying to this guy. He's posted stuff like this before. First it was Linux, now even more hilariously it's FreeBSD. He's a troll, don't waste your time.

Re:An agrarian view on MS XML format

[Anonymous Coward]

come on, this is the common-est troll these days.

yhbt. yhl. hand.

Market decides, Microsoft has to play along.

[LemonFire]

When a critical mass of businesses and goverments require file formats that are documented and that doesn't require proprietary software in order to access them, then even Microsoft has to play along. I believe that this is a sign of that even MS has realized that their older paradigms just doesn't work anymore.

Wrong.

[Kickasso]

See section 8 of the GPL :)

Re:Wrong.

[internet-redstar]

Section 8:

If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

This clearly DOES NOT state that you can append restrictions on the usage of your software.

It's exactly the same reason for which everybody moved from XFree86 to X.org: the obligation to put on it the notice.

It might seem to be of little importance,... just a notice, but it's pandora's box!

So, this brings up the real question: are you an MS fud monkey?

;-)

Microsoft Opening Office XML Formats

[demon_2k]

Ha...this will be interesting
I bet most of you are thinking that not we might be able to "catch" up with to Ms and be able to add better suppert for Ms Office in Open Office and/or others.
The question is if it's XML in text or in binary.
Also, with Ms' drm, everything will start to be encrypted soon. So...they might have opened the XML but legaly you might not be able to open the document.

Does not include Powerpoint

[Saval]

I was hoping, but... this does not include the only thing I Really Need compatibility with: Powerpoint.

"Q. What are the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas?
A.

The Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are comprised of WordprocessingML (the schema for Microsoft Office Word 2003), SpreadsheetML (for Microsoft Office Excel 2003) and FormTemplate Schemas (for Microsoft Office InfoPath(TM) 2003). Download the schemas and documentation."

Every lecturer and marketing people come to me with their powerpoint-presentations, and trying to convert them to usable format is almost impossible...

Re:Does not include Powerpoint

[TheRaven64]

Really? I just open them in Keynote and save them in Keynote's own (XML, documented) file format.

Bait and switch 101

[SlashCrunchPop]

1. Patent a closed file format
2. Create commercial software for the patented file format and make it as widespread as possible
3. Open up the file format to make it widespread among your opposition
4. Make legally nonbinding promises about keeping the file format open
5. Laugh as you watch a great number of Free Open Source Software developers waste their time writing software for the allegedly open file format instead of writing software that could endanger your company
6. Revoke the open licensing of the file format due to alleged profit loss
7. Profit

Re:Bait and switch 101

[Knights who say 'INT]

From teh FAQ:

Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature?
A.

Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses.

Re:Bait and switch 101

[SlashCrunchPop]

Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature?

A. Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses.

The copyright holder may change the license and distribution terms at any time unless such a change is prohibited by the original licensing terms (as that is the case with GPL). The licenses are perpetual until decided otherwise. That statement you quoted is not legally binding, copyright law protects you from making such promises legally binding.

Re:Bait and switch 101

[rollingcalf]

The redistribution license on their fonts was perpetual, then they revoked it.

They did it with fonts, they'll do it with the XML if it suits them.

Fscking useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy the hype.

XML's an open format anyway. It's how the data encoded in an XML format is used that's important.

It's still going to be impossible to figure out this:

<CONTENT>
#agF@!!~ASCsw
...
i8](1N%
</CONTENT>

And if it's not impossible, Microsoft's EULA will try to scare you into not reverse engineering it.

Re:Fscking useless

[bonch]

Have you ever actually looked at an Office 2003-produced XML file? It looks nothing like that, and there is no binary-encoded content.

Open content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the specifications include all the content, or can a document contain sections with undefined formats? For example, can a .DOC file simply be wrapped this format without having to document the .DOC format?

Re: Where's the catch?

[jc42]

Where's the catch?

Remember the discussions a while back about MS patenting some of their XML encoding schemes? This could well be part of a nefarious plot. Sorta like what happened with the GIF format, y'know. We all start writing software that uses some of MS's XML, some of our software is widely used, and then 10 years from now, MS says "Oh, BTW, you're violating several of our patents. Yes, we said you could use the open parts of our XML, but we didn't say you could use the patented parts."

Legalities of such things can be very, very tricky. See also the various discussions here in which people confuse the various kinds of "IP", such as patent, copyright, and trade secret. Permission to use a copyrighted thing is not the same as permission to use a patented thing, and that's different from permission to use a trade secret.

Before doing anything with any MS "IP", it might be wise to consult a good IP lawyer.

Microsoft has been applying for patents at the rate of several per day. This costs time and money. Presumably there's a reason they're doing this.

In the case of giant corporations, paranoia is always in order. They can easily bankrupt the rest of us with legal fees.

Thank Denmark!

[Anonymous Coward]

And all this because of the governments of two small countries? :D

Making available the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas has received support from governments around the world, such as the Danish government. They have taken a leading role in embracing forward-thinking IT policies and developments that deliver real-world value for its citizens.

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation's ambitious InfoStructureBase project seeks to encourage exchange of information across the Danish Public Sector by creating a repository of XML schemas. Using the royalty-free license of the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, the Danish government is better realizing its objective of promoting data exchange and interoperability. Learn more about the Danish software strategy.

Similarly, the Finnish Ministry of Finance has supported the availability of the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. "The licensing of the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas is a positive step that promises to improve data interoperability and the provision of useful eGovernment services," said Arja Terho, Ministry of Finance, Finland.

-- http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/overview.mspx
Feels good to be Danish...

MS office software sales down %3 in +%25 market

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone who bothered to read the disastrous 'record breaking' financial report a couple of days ago, the office software sales are shrinking while the overall market grew quite a bit last quarter.

What is fun is to do the math on even a modest office sales drop like ten to twenty percent and watch what an effect it has on MS's revenue and profit levels. MS is in full scale panic mode over OO and open document formats that are sweeping governments around the planet.

Wow

[Knights who say 'INT]

This is huge. Props to Microsoft.

Too bad it happened shortly after the iWork'05 release. Sure Apple can release downloadable plugins for Pages and Keynote2, can it?

Re:Wow

[TheRaven64]

This doesn't benefit Apple at greatly, since they already had access to file format information from MS. Or did you think Keynote's PowerPoint import worked by magic? MS have always been willing to license Office file format information - for a price and under NDA. And don't forget that this only applies to the latest version of the file format, which is not very useful considering the number of Word '97 documents floating around.

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.

Re:Wow

[Tough Love]

This is huge. Props to Microsoft

No, it's just more cynical gaming of the system by Microsoft, attempting to convince Massachusetts that Microsoft file formats are open while at the same time seeking to prevent the file formats from being usable by GPL and other open source programs.

GPL section 8

[MarkByers]

For those too lazy to look it up, here's the link http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html and the text:

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

TROLL TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLL TROLL!!

F the GPL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source is Open Source... I don't care if it is BSD, GPL, MIT, whatever else you want to make up. It could have none at all and I wouldn't care.

This is awesome reguardless of how you look at it. If you are too brainwashed to see how good this is then you need to open the door and step outside for a few min.

Cheers MS!

You're easily impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

MS merely says they're going to use an "open XML format" for their documents, and you cream your jeans.

Note that they didn't say the contents of the XML fields will be in an open format....

Re:A luke warm welcome (Road BLOCK)

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to charge for their so called "Open Format". By doing so, preventing Open Source Users from making them compatible.

There should be a stipulation that the formats can be used by any program w/out a license fee.

This is still a road block.

It means "I have a bridge to sell in Brooklyn."

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy this misleading marketing crap from Microsoft, you're a fscking idiot.

What this is and isn't

[wombatmobile]

Microsoft has only freed up the right to use their XML schemas. This move doesn't change the way they sell Office. They still get their revenue from selling Office.

Regarding XML schemas, these are free and easy to define anyway. Anyone is free to invent an XML schema. The hard part for any vendor or industry group is getting stakeholders to use the particular XML schema that the interested party publishes.

Microsoft want customers to use Microsoft's XML schema and not somebody elses XML schema. This is part of their way to try to achieve popularization of their schemas by and amongst customers.

Microsoft customers will only be able to use Microsoft's schemas if they have Office 2003. Far more than 50% of Office users currently have a version prior to 2003.

Re:What this is and isn't

[nberardi]

Microsoft has only freed up the right to use their XML schemas. This move doesn't change the way they sell Office. They still get their revenue from selling Office.

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:What this is and isn't

[wombatmobile]

It sounds like you are saying it is a bad thing for a company to gain money...

Read the post. I didn't state what you say.

I would really like to know what you point is.

Read the post.

What are you not going to be happy until we move to a totally un-capitalistic society (i.e. socialism)?

Are you searching for a way to talk about socialism?

A majority of research money to advance technology comes from what companies take in as profit.

What is the relevance of that to my post?

So I don't sound like a total troll,

uh...

the Linux Kernel by proxy goes and helps IBM, and Red Hat to donate to these causes.

Is that the same subject as my post or have you started a new subject?

You should really check your hate at the door when replying to these articles.

er, what is this hate that you speak of?

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.

Who is proposing that?

In addition somebody has to define the schema for the files, why not Microsoft?

Are you going to tell us why?

Re:What this is and isn't

[nberardi]

You really have nothing, all that you can do is pick apart my post in a hope to make everybody think that it is not relativent. However, you short answers really show that my post was right on the money and you really have nothing but hate for Microsoft to post against a company that made a "standard" (for Office 2003) and put it out there for others to use.

Of course they want you to use their product. However by making it open they make their product more viable to the developer, and if there are other projects that use this "standard" they will gain more money.

I guess to the hate mongers at /., no matter what Microsoft does is going to be wrong.

You tell them to open their products XML schema, they do, and you hate them more.

You tell them to release software under an open source license, they do, and you hate them more.

I guess this next part is more of an open ended question to the people that just want to hate Microsoft for making money off software.

What can Microsoft do inorder for you to say, this is a turning point that will satisfy both us /.ers and the Microsoft people.

Re:What this is and isn't

[soulhuntre]

What can Microsoft do inorder for you to say, this is a turning point that will satisfy both us /.ers and the Microsoft people.

Nothing. The hatred is born of nothing in it's core and justified by nothing.

By hating MS they feel 3l33t.
By hating MS they justify piracy.
By hating MS they feel like the underdog.
By blaming MS they excuse their own failures.

Hating MS is, in many ways, the glue that holds this community ( /. ) together. They have a vested emotional interest in never, ever, letting it go.

If they do have to, they will then turn to hating the "record industry" or the "poatent office" and as a last resort Apple computer (after SCO and IBM).

Someone to hate is imperative.

Re:What this is and isn't

[wombatmobile]

Dude, your mind is closed and you are talking to the wrong target. I am not the group that you are compelled to attack mindlessly. Your debate is 100% decoupled from the content of my post.

Get a life. Start by acquiring the ability to read. You'll be less miserable then, your combativeness will subside and your grass will grow greener.

Bzzzt...

[Kickasso]

It does plainly state that I can create a program, place it under GPL, and ignore patent ussues altogether as long as I add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding shitholes that permit software patents. You're living in one of them? Sucks to be you.

Re:Bzzzt...

[internet-redstar]

Section 8 is intended to be used to help copyright holders (people who wrote the GPL program) when certain technologies are prohibited from full international distribution due to patent restrictions in certain parts of the world.

This means: if you don't have a license for a software patent valid in the US only, then the GPL software can still be distributed in the rest of the world.

My first remark is simple: this MS license DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MAKE GPL SOFTWARE TO USE THEIR PATENT. And, yes, thanks to the GPL, people who live in other parts of the world than the US, simply don't need to have a patent license and can happily distribute their software with geographic limitations.

Re:A luke warm welcome (Road BLOCK)

[Anonymous Coward]

Dam, I just ran though the links and it actually looks like its real.

I have yet to download the MSI file to read the agreement. It looks too good to be true.

1)Could MS plan on changing the file format?

2)Are they going to change the "Save" drop down menu to default to XML because users aren't smart enough to realize that they have a choice.

3)There has to be somthing amiss. I am just missing it.

4)Could they change the format (slightly) and not re-release it. That way people are on their office platform for another couple of years?

5) Help meeeee....

Re:A luke warm welcome (Road BLOCK)

[YrWrstNtmr]

They are going to charge for their so called "Open Format"

No, they're not.
"Microsoft offers open and royalty-free documentation and licenses for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas."

Net even BSD-compatible.

[ccady]

Let's take a closer look. On the legal notice page, we see that "The following license applies to the schema files ... and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files ..." Thus, if you include one of their XSDs (schema files) in order to parse an Office document, then "No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein." That pretty much precludes even a BSD license. The "openness" of these schemas includes the ability to use it as Microsoft has defined them, not the ability to modify it as you see fit.

Re:Net even BSD-compatible.

[tepples]

"No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein."

An XML schema is a piece of data, and distribution of data with a program is considered "mere aggregation", which is expressly not affected by the copyleft provisions of the GNU GPL. As long as the schema may be distributed verbatim without royalty, it's OK to distribute it alongside a GPL computer program. And no, an XSLT filter based on the specification is not a derivative work if it incorporates only the methods of the spec, not how they're expressed in the spec, as the methods are licensed under this reasonably permissive patent license.

Re:Net even BSD-compatible.

[m50d]

That's for the schemas though, they probably don't want hundreds of different copies of them. It's no worse than FDL, Debian won't include them but I can't see anyone else having a problem. Wtf would you want to modify the *specification* for?

Re:Net even BSD-compatible.

[tricorn]

That's ridiculous. I can take BSD code, compile it, and sell it to you and prohibit you from making copies or derivatives of it. I can certainly include a notice in the code I'm distributing that has the Microsoft-required statement, and prohibit you from removing that notice. That's what the BSD license allows. About the only thing it requires is that copyright notices not be removed.

Re:Net even BSD-compatible.

[mal0rd]

kind of like the way the GPL is copyrighted and has "all rights reserved", but we still distribute it with our programs

Here's the legal notice...

[ccady]

On November 17, 2003, Microsoft introduced an open and royalty-free license and documentation for the Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas including WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML and Formtemplate schemas. The following license applies to the schema files and technical documentation and must be included in any copies that are made of the schema files and technical documentation. The Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are available through the Download Center.

-----

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 © Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true.

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: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.

THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.

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.

Cant embrace/extend then?

[Zo0ok]

Ahh! So you cant take MS format, and embrace and extend it?

Cool!

Re:Cant embrace/extend then?

[gronofer]

The idea of embracing or extending a MS format makes me feel ill. I'd rather embrace and extend complete gibberish. But wait, it's the same thing.

Re: Where's the catch?

[Halo1]

"Oh, BTW, you're violating several of our patents. Yes, we said you could use the open parts of our XML, but we didn't say you could use the patented parts."

According to the FAQ linked from the story, Microsoft gives you a perpetual patent license. I can't read the license itself, since I don't have Windows and it seems you can only view the license when installing.

Re:Confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes
they still hold patents on the formats.
who is to say that they won't use that against the community one day?

The licensing agreement is scary...

[Garwulf]

This is actually a very odd and frightening licensing agreement, when you look at it. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I can read a fair amount of legalese (you have to when you're a writer, otherwise you get ripped off), and this seems like a VERY bad document to me. I'm not allowed to quote it all here according to the copyright notices on the Microsoft site, but here is the link: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp

Not too much surprising in the first section. It seems to me that it says essentially that you can use it, and there are patents involved.

That last paragraph of that section is a bit exclusionary, but again, not surprising - if you break the license, you can't use the product. Pretty standard. But this is where it starts to get interesting.

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights. (Quoted from the licensing agreement from the above link under fair use copyright laws)

This is the first section that makes me scratch my head. Who is Microsoft to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own intellectual rights? They're not prohibiting the transfer of Microsoft's rights, but the end user's.

Now, my reading of it may be wrong, but it seems to me that the next paragraph is telling me that if I'm a developer using these schemas, and the U.S. State Department releases a document in Microsoft's XML format, then I'm not allowed to open that document and read it, unless I'm going to alter it. That's puzzling to me, as it makes no logical sense. But the real kicker is the paragraph right after it, which really has to be quoted:

Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation. (Quoted from the licensing agreement from the above link under fair use copyright law)

Now this is a very bad clause, and that's the kicker. So if you create a word processor that can read these schemas, and Microsoft steals your technology, regardless of what it is, you're not allowed to sue them if you want to keep your license.

Or, put this way, the moment OpenOffice or StarOffice implements these schemas, Microsoft can plunder their source code, and the only way OO or Sun can fight it is to lose the compatibility that would make them competitive.

The rest is fairly standard stuff, although the indemnity clause is very frightening when considering the clause I quoted above. So, if Microsoft steals your word processor's technology when you're using these formats, they're not responsible for any damage that they cause, including running you out of business, if it comes to that.

Come to think of it, this is a VERY bad agreement.

Re:The licensing agreement is scary...

[RPoet]

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.

I thought you said you could read legalese. It says, in the text you quoted yourself, that Microsoft can cancel your license to the schemas if you sue Microsoft for patent infringement in relation to their use of their own schemas. Source code is generally not protected by patents, but by copyright. So your take on this is faulty at best.

Re:The licensing agreement is scary...

[spitzak]

The patent clause sounds very much like the ones in other open source licenses. There is a strict limit, "for patent infingement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with Office Schemas".

If I understand this right, if your company examines these schemas and thinks they violate one of your patents and sues, you lose the right to use the schema (including the parts that are not covered by your patent). However if you see one of your patents violated by some other part of Windows, you can sue, and still use the schema.

This is a good thing.

It appears the only bug in the license is the "advertising clause". This probably is going to mean converter plugins rather than having GPL software directly read/write this.

Re:The licensing agreement is scary...

[m50d]

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.

You misunderstand. They aren't prohibiting it, they're just not licensing it. If your country's laws allow you to transfer patent rights without permission, then you can do that, but if not and the format has a valid patent on it you'll have to tell your users to get patent licenses from MS. Not wonderful, but MS isn't keen on letting their patent licenses be distributed wily-nily, and the patent stuff doesn't affect the copyright.

Exactly...

[Futurepower(R)]

Welcome to Microsoft Palavra! (TM)

Newsworthy?

[siljeal]

Err, how exactly is this new? Microsoft has been offering the schemas for a year now. What would have been interesting would have been Schemas for PowerPoint, if such a thing exists. But last time I checked they had only Schemas for Excel and Word Stuff. And don't think MS is overly generous here. Eventually customers will demand to know how interfaces work so they can escape the vendor lock-in they currently find themselves in. Microsoft was facing such demands and merely responded to them. This is prudent, but nothing to get overly excited about.

Re:Newsworthy?

[SJasperson]

The most recent schema download (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f amilyid=fe118952-3547-420a-a412-00a2662442d9&displ aylang=en) includes Word, Excel, InfoPath, Visio, OneNote, Project, and Office Research Services schemas.

Desperate Times Call for...

[eno2001]

...desperate measures. This is akin to if Sony had decided to allow other companies (read competitors) to use the Betamax format in their own VCRs with no license fees. Someone please cue the album: Music to Sell Out By.

Not GPL compatable, but...

[WikianJim]

The agreement is not compatable with the GPL, since it introduces a requirement for attribution which is not present in the GPL (and the GPL is not compatable with any licence which enforces something not in the GPL) but... It is debatable to what degree a XML format schema is "linked to" anyway, which is the main reason GPL-compatability is needed. For example, the transformation to OASIS format could be done using XSLT. XSLT is an XML format to transform one XML format to another. This can be done using, for example, Xerces which is Apache licenced XSL engine. What's to stop openoffice linking to an XSL engine (they're pretty small) and using it to import documents? Even if an XSL engine can't be linked to, whats to stop it being started in a seperate process and piped through?

Re:Not GPL compatable, but...

[spitzak]

This is true, but for larger GPL projects it will require tracking down every single author and getting permission to change the license. Maybe this is possible for KWrite, but I'm not sure about Open Office.

I wonder if it is possible to have a new GPL-like license that would not have an "advertising clause" and would disallow you from adding an advertising clause for your modifications, but explicitly allows the addition of "advertising clauses" provided they are required to incorporate otherwise open source software. The added software and advertising clause would have to be explicitly well documented and allowed to be removed. RMS would not like this, but it would stop Microsoft's childish attempts to be incompatable with GPL.

Re:Not GPL compatable, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does using a non-free XSLT file on you XSL engine necessarily make the engine non-free?

Firefox runs non-free javascript files afterall.

Re:Not GPL compatable, but...

[m50d]

It needs to clearly not be a derivative work. If the program only makes sense in the context of open office calling it, this is not permissible.

Red Herring..

[Anonymous Coward]

According to their FAQ:

Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers?

A. Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreements and then work in a collaborative fashion on development of a program or programs.

Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form?

A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program.


They specifically allow source code distribution but binaries are not mentioned. This gives them an out to claim patent on the binaries methinks. Fair waning.. IANAL.

-

Worse than that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than that, Microsoft is responsible for spreading cancer.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_ li nux_is_a_cancer/

Guess this is appriopriate

[Eternal Annoyance]

First they ignore you...
Then they laugh at you...
Then they fight you...
Then you win.

Guess we're nearing stage 4.

Re:Guess this is appriopriate

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid someone's laughing at you right now. We're nowhere near stage 4, unfortunately.

Incompatible with GPL Section 6

[atari8]

From Section 6 of the GPL:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

If I take a GPL program, add in Microsoft's XML format under Microsoft's license, then distribute the resulting program, I will have to place a further restriction on redistribution (i.e., redistributors must include Microsoft's patent license notice in all source code and accept Microsoft's license). Section 6 says clearly that I can't add terms and conditions on top of the GPL that are more restrictive than the GPL.

That alone makes Microsoft's terms and conditions GPL incompatible.

Actually, their biggest defeat here...

[galdur]

.. would be if they would be forced by market or legislative pressure to implement the OpenDocument standard, either as a default or optional export format.

As it is, they keep *their* format and anyone wishing to make interoperable software is forced to write to *their* format. It's me, me, me across the board.

Two steps forward (.doc->XML), three steps backwards(M$ proprietary XML), two steps forward (licensable M$ XML).

Apart from the fact that we now have probably a documented format and XML to ease support for it, we've reached the same status quo of a few years back.

Question those in the GNU (hahah nice pun eh?)

[BioCS.Nerd]

Q. Can I distribute a program that can read and/or write files that support the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas in source code form? A. Yes. You can distribute your program in source code form. But, note that the patent and copyright provisions in the license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas require you to include a notice of attribution in your program

Is this a problem for GPL software?

Re:Question those in the GNU (hahah nice pun eh?)

[Anonymous Coward]

(hahah nice pun eh?) GNo.

Support OASIS..

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already a truly open office format developed by OASIS.

Microsoft can read the writing on the wall and is trying to combat a truly open standard with their patent encumbered version.

What we need is OASIS support everywhere, including M$ Office. We need to develop plug-ins with easy/friendly install and stick them on a website so that even a novice user will be able to get it on their system and be able to share OASIS docs.

Office 2005

[marcovje]

/me expects Office 2005 any day now :-)

Seriously, I think there is no catch. During the last years M$ probably got signals that it would be excluded from government contracts if the format wasn't somewhat open.

They just waited a period to let their own Microsoft XML tools and libs to establish themselves, and now make some good press with it.

Nevertheless, it is a good thing. Open is open, Microsoft or not.

Nevertheless, /ME taps the "hell" thermometer

[leonbrooks]

It's the lesser of two evils for Microsoft.

Well, technically it's the option of greatest evil remaining to them. (-:

Their traditional business model has depended on a "secret sauce", or some form of crippling or diminishment of the interface for third parties. The original MS-Office "XML" formats were horribly limited and still managed to be non-standard. If these are as crippled as the last lot, you'd be better off using HTML for interchange.

There will be a gotcha planted in there somewhere, what remains to be seen is whether it can be worked around or not. I'm betting it can.

Re:Nevertheless, /ME taps the "hell" thermometer

[iamacat]

There will be a gotcha planted in there somewhere, what remains to be seen is whether it can be worked around or not. I'm betting it can.

and then in the signature

If you know anything about Lotus file formats, please click my homepage link. If you can't contribute, please vote.

Dude, if you don't trust something licensed voluntarily and for free, how come you want people to reverse engineer file formats? Don't you think a company is more likely to sue if it didn't volunteer the information?

Correction

[Garwulf]

"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."

This is what happens when you try to read legalese right after putting together a proposal to a publisher. Going back over it, the section in question states it is not a violation of the license to read a government document using these formats. I took the sentence to be an imperative rather than a statement - my mistake (stupid fuzzy language).

I think the rest of the analysis stands, though. The patent bit requires a bit more explanation, however. Somebody rightfully point out that code is mainly protected by copyright, but certain technology using code is patented - so if Microsoft steals that technology from your word processor (say, if you've got some brand new way of parsing files, to take a fairly lame example), they're forbidding you to sue them unless you want to lose your compatibility.

Sometimes I think there needs to be a government body that sets software standards and licenses - that way you don't see licenses with clauses like this.

Re:Correction

[RPoet]

certain technology using code is patented - so if Microsoft steals that technology from your word processor (say, if you've got some brand new way of parsing files, to take a fairly lame example), they're forbidding you to sue them unless you want to lose your compatibility.

No, you are reading it wrong. If Microsoft "steals" your patented parsing technology, and you whip up a patent covering Microsoft's XML schemas and sue them over those schemas, THEN Microsoft cancels your schema license. If you sue them for something else, then the schema license isn't affected at all. Go and read what you quoted again, I am sure you'll agree :)

For the record, many recent open source licenses from both IBM and SUN has this exact same term ("use our tech, except if you sue us over them using patents"). GNU is considering this kind of protection too, in the next version of the GPL.

Re:Correction

[Garwulf]

No, you are reading it wrong. If Microsoft "steals" your patented parsing technology, and you whip up a patent covering Microsoft's XML schemas and sue them over those schemas, THEN Microsoft cancels your schema license. If you sue them for something else, then the schema license isn't affected at all. Go and read what you quoted again, I am sure you'll agree :)

You may very well be right. However, I think that there is some merit to my reading as well. I think it could be abused in that manner, and knowing Microsoft, well...

(Sorry, but speaking as a writer dealing with copyrights for stories and things, this software stuff is just convoluted. It makes the stuff I deal with look easy!)

For the record, many recent open source licenses from both IBM and SUN has this exact same term ("use our tech, except if you sue us over them using patents"). GNU is considering this kind of protection too, in the next version of the GPL.

I can see the merit in that.

Re:Correction

[tricorn]

All the patent clause is saying is that if you sue them for violating a patent you hold with respect to reading or writing such files, they will remove your right to use the patent. That actually sounds reasonable. Let's say you come up with a great new method of writing the XML for one of these files in a much faster way, and you patent it. Microsoft is saying "in exchange for us allowing you to use our patents to read and write these files, you agree that we can use any of your patents when reading or writing these files" (well, not really, but it has the effect of that). Why should they let you use their patents when you won't let them use yours?

Why Governments Care

[Midnight Warrior]

(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, 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).

Good job!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's good for everyone (the developers and Microsoft).

There is only one loser: other open so called standards. M$ Office reinforce itself as the only (de facto) standard.

patents are included in the license

[michaelredux]

Related patents seem to be included in the license. Here's a quote from the FAQ:

Under the patent license for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas, Microsoft offers royalty-free rights both to its issued patents and patents that may be issued in the future.

statements on web sites are not enough

[idlake]

A granting of a "perpetual, royalty-free license" on a case-by-case basis or through a web site or download is not enough. Either Microsoft dedicates the patents to the public domain (why don't they?), or we need clear, binding, written legal agreements between Microsoft and an independent standards body; that is the best way to guarantee that a format is and remains open.

linking, not distribution

[idlake]

The GPL is about linking, not distribution. If the license is incompatible, OOo could still include an external import/export filter, even as part of the OOo distribution.

Re:linking, not distribution

[Tough Love]

The GPL is about linking, not distribution

Wrong, the GPL is all about distribution.

Open Source/Open Standards have changed the game

[acordes]

I think the big realization here is that OSS and Open Standards have already won the "battle" with Microsoft. Linux doesn't have to a majority share in any market and Microsoft doesn't have to go bankrupt for this to be true. OSS has forced Microsoft to change its business practices because of the competition, and it makes life better for consumers and developers in the process. And at the end of the day, that's all that really matters.

Actual usage license

[swiftstream]

That's only the license for the specifications; here the license for actually using the specifications to write software.
(from http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp)

Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License

Published: December 3, 2003 | Updated: January 27, 2005

This document is intended to expand upon the rights that Microsoft grants to certain Microsoft® Office 2003 XML schemas. As described in this document, the technical specifications for the schemas include rights under copyright to make reproductions and to display and distribute those reproductions, subject to certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this document is to provide a patent license to individuals and organizations interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to such specifications.

Please read this entire document carefully to understand your rights.
Office Schemas

Microsoft Office 2003 includes support for certain XML "schemas" known as Wordprocessing ML, Spreadsheet ML, and FormTemplate Schemas. For purposes of this document, these schemas will be referred to as the "Office Schemas." In general terms, schemas are document structures used for presentation and layout of XML data.

Copies of the technical specifications for the Office Schemas, which include an associated copyright notice and license, can be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/office/understanding/xml office/default.aspx.
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 write files that are fully compliant with the specifications for the Office Schemas. The term "Necessary Claims" means claims of a patent or patent application (including continuations, continuations-in-part, or reissues) 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. 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, or (iii) covering the reading or writing of files other than those complying with the requirements of the specifications for the Office Schemas. "Enabling Technologies" means technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product or portion of a product that complies with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas, but are not expressly set forth or required in those specifications, such as general word processing, spreadsheet or presentation features or functionality, operating system technology, programming interfaces, protocols, and the like.

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

Re:Actual usage license

[jimicus]

One particularly interesting bit in there, though IANAL:

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

There goes the GPL. There goes the BSD license. In fact, now I come to think of it, doesn't that somewhat screw up any open source license which makes it possible to fork a project?

Yeah but...

[Spy der Mann]

what about the BINARY formats?
What's the matter, MS? Chicken? ;-)

let's celebrate!

[BinLadenMyHero]

The submiter pointed out some negative side of it, but it is sure a victory for the openess of the world.
Victory of a battle, but not the war. Let's warm our hearts with hope and continue to fight.

Actually, many licenses are GPL compatible

[Anonymous Coward]

There are quite a few licenses that are GPL-compatible out there. That's why it matters, because they actually exist. The more they number, the more code can be shared among those licenses, which is a goal of the GPL. It's not for anything else than keeping as much code open as possible.

If you don't believe me, check out these 29 licenses listed on the FSF-homepage.

Re:Actually, many licenses are GPL compatible

[Richard_at_work]

No, you missed my point entirely. Those licenses are GPL compatable. The GPL is not compatable with those licenses tho, and yes there is a difference. This means code flows one way, and in many circumstances it means the GPL is no better than closed source.

Requirement for attribution.

[Kickasso]

It may be incompatible with GPL in letter, but not in spirit. GPL doesn't allow you to alter copyright notices of other contributors anyway. The required attribution is not a copyright notice, but there's no reason why some next version of the GPL can't allow for such things.

The patent risk might not be that bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the patent issue:

It looks like MS is doing this to gain access to markets that require open standards.

If that's true, then MS will need to make sure that all IP issues are resolved in the public's favor -- copyright, patent, trade secret, etc.

"Open standards" are useless unless 3rd parties are free to read and write the format. Governments know this, and some of them will not give the green light to MS unless all IP issues are resolved for Office XML.

Open? Yes. Usable?

[l0b0]

How do we know for sure that current and future Office XML documents will always validate against the schemas? With e.g. MS Word's history of internal format incompatibility and extremely messy handling of large documents, who wants to bet that all Office 2003 files conform to the schemas?

And what if a bug is found to create non-validating documents which can still be displayed in MS Office? "Oh, we'll fix it for Word 2014." It'll be hack hell for OOo.

mod up -- default is crucial

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this up. That's the most crucial question here: whether XML will be the default format. Currently, I don't think it is.

Microsoft taking advantage of people's ignorance has always been the lock-in mechanism, and that's not going to change unless the defaults change to be open.

Victory of defeat?

[syphax]

This represents either a significant capitulation on the part of Microsoft, or the launch of a Trojan Horse.

Details to follow...

Read carefully.

[Kickasso]

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.

If you want to use MS's patents for free, give them your related patents for free. If you don't patent your stuff at all, you can't sue them over patent infringement. If you don't sue them over patent infringement, they can't terminate the license. Fair, no?

But Office XML Formats are NOT the standard...

[rhadc]

As far as I know, Microsoft's binary document formats are the standard, not it's XML formats. The binary formats are the ones that can be read by Office 97 forward, and those are the ones by which the world of office productivity is still ruled. These open formats might be nice to have, and they might even shed light on how the binary formats work, but they are not all that is needed to open the door to proper open source implementation of the standards.

rhadc

Wrong

[lokedhs]

Those licenses are compatible in the sense that code written under those licenses can be incorporated in a GPL project. However, the opposite is not true. I cannot, for example, take GNU licensed code and put it in a BSD-licensed ("modified BSD licensed", to be formally correct) project. This is exactly what the grandfather post was getting at, the compatibility is one-way.

Personally I don't use the term "viral" but this is the point the people who do base that accusation on.

hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

so, now whose the communiist?

"royalty-free" does not mean "GPL compatible".

[khasim]

I'll wait until I see the EXACT wording of the license.

If Microsoft was serious about allowing open access to those patents, there are avenues they can take to allow that.

Just saying "royalty-free" only means that you won't have to pay to use them.

Freeware is not the same a Open Source.

patented and copyrighted

[oliverthered]

This makes it GPL incompatible. In the USA Period.

No Software patents here, and all I have to do to get around the copyright is recreate the facts in the material using my own presentation.

License Shmicense

[Q2Serpent]

The main thread around here seems to be that the license isn't compatible with GPL or other OSI licenses, and so reading the format in OpenOffice could cause problems.

Since OpenDocument and MS XML are both XML documents, couldn't someone write an application that converts between them? Seems like it would take a bit of translating, but the schemas are available...

This small utility could be under some license that makes everyone happy, and not force OpenOffice et al to do some legal gymnastics. Maybe it could even be a plugin to OpenOffice and friends. Surely, a plugin can have a different license...

-Serp

Re: Where's the catch?

[Dwonis]

There is no EULA prompt when you use the installer. If you don't have Windows, you can download the zip file.from my site.

Life must be fascinating for you.

[khasim]

Do you watch the instant replays on the game and wonder if it will be different this time?

Hey, maybe it won't hurt this time if you smash your hand with a hammer. Maybe it'll feel good. Maybe you'll find a cookie.

Let's try not to be too cynical, Slashdotters.

How about if we just learn from experience and history then? Is learning okay with you?

There are very simple and very clear ways that Microsoft COULD go about to provide those formats and patents to Open usage.

But Microsoft isn't doing that. So until I see the exact legal wording, I'm going to be suspicious.

Microsoft is doing a good thing here.

How do you know that? Have you read the legal paperwork about the limitations on it will be? There WILL be limitations. But you think you already know them (and someone mod'ed you "insightful" for it).

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.

So, you refuse to learn from history, you believe things are great when you haven't read the fine print and you think other people who don't follow your lead are wrong.

Hip hip hooray!

Why don't you take Mr. Hammer to meet Mr. Hand again? Maybe the result will be different this time.

Maybe.

Hip hip hooray!

Not about the money, about ability

[mnoel2]

Money isn't the only way Microsoft could stifle us.

A similar problem is posed with Mono: what if MS says, "Sure, our IP" -- I don't like the term, but play along -- "is open for anyone. But all OSS projects have to do this paperwork dance for approval." And then, they sit on the paperwork. Your cool new cross-platform whizzy-bangtacular project just got caught up in all kinds of red tape you'll never get out of. Do you really think, if MS (or any company) felt threatened and able to get away with such a thing, that they wouldn't try?

Similar scenarios have been posited, and I haven't seen a clear answer from either MS or the OSS folks on this. (Although I'd love to see an answer, one way or the other) I don't mean to spread FUD about Mono -- I think it's an excellent technology, from what I've seen -- or interoperating with MS XML. But will you really benefit enough to justify that kind of risk, when you could use the rapidly-maturing OpenOffice file standard (OpenDocument?) or one of the open-source cross platform GUI development kits? I'd take the disadvantages to using WxPython, Glade, or similar over losing my project to IP politics.

Forget about the MS "conspiracy"

[fm6]

Where's the catch? I mean, there has to be for MS to open up one of the keys to its kingdom.

Not at all. Sure, Microsoft is a monopoly, and their sales and marketing people aren't above screwing people over to maintain their dominance. (As are most sales and marketing people.) But remember, the heart of the company is bunch of aging computer hippies who blundered into their market domination.

These guys have created a bunch of R&D teams that seem to be dominated by MENSA types who are thoroughly convinced of their own brilliance and have little talent for co-operation. These teams don't even play well, with other entities within Microsoft (most, if not all, of Microsoft's famous screwups are obviously the result of miscoordination) so of course they don't get along with external entites.

That's why they've done compatible versions of Kerboros, Java, and a lot of other standards. Not because they want to screw up the standards, but because they're convinced that their way of doing something is the only right way. That's why they totally change file formats and APIs with every release cycle. Not to drive programmers and users crazy, but because they can't stop tweaking their products to make them "better".

I've worked in computing longer than I care to think about, and I've always worked with people who had this mentality. In the normal course of events, they're forced to grow up and accomodate the real-world needs of others. But the situation in Redmond is anything but normal -- they're assured of billions of dollars in software licenses no matter how badly they screw up. This has the effect of re-inforcing their naive faith in their own brilliance and insulating them from any need to learn from their mistakes.

In this light, it's only natural that they'd open up their XML schemas. It allows all us peons to appreciate how brilliant they are, and to "debunk" the "myth" that they don't care about interoperability.

They didn't revoke the license.

[Kickasso]

They stopped distributing the fonts. You can still download them legally, if you know where to look, just not from microsoft.com. The license is in effect.

Re:They didn't revoke the license.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still download them legally, if you know where to look, just not from microsoft.com. The license is in effect.

At best, only for those copies that were distributed under the old license, if at all. You want to be stuck with XML 2005 in year 2010, thats fine but thats not a useful solution.

Bollocks.

[Kickasso]

Read a book, willja? A license is a contract. Contracts cannot be changed just because one of the parties wants so.

OpenOffice

[rnd()]

I'm looking forward to the first update to OpenOffice that takes into consideration all of the information in the schemas.

OO looks great these days, btw, for anyone who hasn't used it lately. Still looks ugly on screen for bulleted lists in the word processor, but it's getting pretty darn good.

Not always

[ZigMonty]

In a lot of cases, stage 4 is: then they crush you.

The rebel doesn't always win.

XML formatted documents are Big

[Zebra1024]

Out of curiosity I took a large document (116K characters, 71 pages) and saved in the XML format using Word 2003. The original binary document was 343KB and the XML document was 1,246 KB. The XML format was 3½ times larger than the binary format! While this format may be good for moving documents between applications it is going to put a serious load on file servers if suddenly all document grow 3 times their current size.

Re:XML formatted documents are Big

[sabat]

It surprises me that they don't just compress upon saving. Text compresses really well. Shrug.

Re:XML formatted documents are Big

[iggymanz]

we don't need a human-readable data format, we just need a format that is human readable with the correct viewing software. xml is a waste of resources: bandwidth, storage, processing.

Re:XML formatted documents are Big

[iggymanz]

I just checked out the YAML spec. much less bloat than XML. Of course, the authors of the YAML spec went too far making things complicated, should have kept it simple, don't need all those types or mappings.

Double bollocks

[Anonymous Coward]

A license GRANTS rights
A contract REVOKES rights

Fairly simple. That is why a contract needs consideration and why an EULA is a contract not a license.

Repeat after me: a license is not a contract

[SlashCrunchPop]

A license is NOT a contract:

The GNU General Public License is a specially drafted copyright license. It is a legal tool.

It is very robust. It is made of simple parts: it is made from copyright law, not from contract law. By default, copyright excludes others from copying. That is the default. Copyright law also provides the power to license; but a license is not a contract. If a possible licensee does not agree with the terms of the license, then the possible licensee may not copy.

This is an opinion.

[Kickasso]

Here's another:

A license is a contract granting permission to do something

So there.

Give me a fucking break

[melted]

The storage model of Word/Excel/etc. is based around Structured Storage - the storage standard that MSFT includes with every god damn COM toolkit they distribute (including ATL7), and which they've been pushing really hard in the 90's for wider adoption. Nobody cared about it back then, and then XML came in and people started to care even less. The point is, the structure of Word files is not as closed as some would like to think. It's the OLE objects (which in turn use structured storage as well) that make things difficult. But putting their data as binary blobs within XML ain't gonna fix that.

BTW, the word on the street is, the next version of Office will save all its files in XML. Yep, that's right. XML will be default. Now whether or not it will be compatible with XML Office 2003 understands - that's another question.

Re:Give me a fucking break

[KidSock]

You're a little wrong. Structured Storage is just a "filesystem within a file". The streams within the Structured Storage file contains the real information. Those streams are crude serializations of the main text stream and various tables.

But I your instinct is correct because the XML capability of Word is not what people seem to think it is. People tend to think that if you export to "XML" that you can manipulate it and then reimport and see the changes and retain all of the nice formatting. That is not true and MS is getting a lot of milage out of splitting that hair.

Re: Where's the catch?

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

So would it be better if government agencies requested that office products support an existing open document standard, such as the one used by OOo? That would seem a safer route!

Google says:

[Kickasso]

"license is a contract" -- 882 hits.
"license is not a contract" -- 211 hits.

I win!

By the way, if you need legal adwice you should talk to a lawyer.

Re:Google says:

[twistedcubic]

best post all day!

Re:Google says:

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on we replace the legal system with the google search engine. One more step towards corporate control of lives....

It's about time

[jbltgz]

All I have to say is it's about time.

OK, for people trying to download the stuff.

[Kickasso]

If you're on a system that cannot process a Microsoft Installer .msi file:

1. Say "dammit" (or "thank $DEITY", your choice :)
2. Go to the Danish government IT site and download from there

Re:OK, for people trying to download the stuff.

[gronofer]

Thanks, I was a complete mystery to me why they thought releasing the documents in a Windows-only format constituted opening them up to "everybody".

Thank you, MS

[MrRed]

I haven't had a chance to look at TFA, but at first glance I'd have to say this is a good thing for all concerned.

I've often said that if MS would make a linux version of Office, I and may other linux users I know would buy it. This seems to me to be the next best thing.

Now if only they would get a clue about their other formats (MAPI and NTFS come to mind).

this could be a good thing for my company

[josepha48]

right now my company has chosen to develop the new web front end in java. Part of our application however does document generation. The document generation is ms word docs templates that get mailmerges from a database and then converted to pdf. It works okay, but to do this using java, I have had to use jacob the java com / active x bridge and make this a web service on a windows box. I'd rather see a solution done all in java on one box. By open xml format, we maybe able to do this, but it will require us to do some changes to our stuff.

huh?

[aLEczapKA]

is it only me or noone else sees this?

ms office docs as open standard = dead openoffice

the strongest argument behind Oo was exacly this - open standard for documents. Now MS did it also, no point in using Oo anymore. And I am talking here about big biz or goverments.
Price? Right... if this would be the case, everybody would be using Oo from long time ago.

It's nothing noble behind what MS did, it's simply another apropach of gaining more (or not loosing existing) market.

this was damn smart move

This is a fact

[SlashCrunchPop]

According to The Superior Court of Los Angeles County:

A license is not a contract, according to Rosenblatt v. Cal. St. Bd. of Pharmacy (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 69 , 74 [158 P.2d 199] which stated that, "A license has none of the elements of a contract and does not confer an absolute right but a personal privilege ...." (Ibid) There is a clear distinction between a license and a contract, although respondent City correctly states the frequent misuse of words such as "license," "permit," and "franchise."

huh. Hold on a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

They claim to be granting a license - but under the laws of most of the world outside the US, they don't have any right to exclude me making a compatible implementation _anyway_! By acknowledging this license, you lend weight to the idea that it is valid that they have any right to restrict you without that license.... which is BULLSHIT (outside the ex-land-of-the-free USA...).

WE DONT WANT THEM TO DECIDE FUTURE OPEN STANDARDS

[thehunger]

People, I'm worried here:

It's fine that Microsoft has enabled everyone and their grandma to include Office-compatiblity in their products, but we really dont want MS Office to become the 'open' standard of the future.

Work is well underway to include support for the new OASIS office document formats in OpenOffice.org. I'd hate this new M$ announcement to result in nobody Office 2003 formats to become a standard, simply because nobody will bother developing their own.

Perhaps OO.o should only include READ capability for Microsofts formats, and READ + WRITE for OASIS and other open standards?

Important thing to remember

[Cereal Box]

Before everyone gets excited that OpenOffice will be able to read Word files perfectly (and subsequently become paranoid that this is all some big legal trap set by Microsoft), remember that these are just XML Schemas. Having the schema means that you're able to determine whether or not the XML file (Word document) is valid. In other words, you've got the syntax (big deal) and not the semantics.

So no, this announcement is not going to bring OpenOffice any closer to Word interoperability.

Google also says:

[SlashCrunchPop]

"britney spears is a genius" - 11 hits
"britney spears isn't a genius" - 0 hits
"britney spears is not a genius" - 0 hits
"britney spears is no genius" - 0 hits

Sir, I am impressed, your legal prowess is surpassed only by your deductive reasoning.

Sorry, it's BSD incompatible as well

[spitzak]

Basically Microsoft wants to make sure the GPL is unusable. As another poster pointed out, the GPL is "viral" in that code can more easily flow into it than out of it. A GPL program can incorporate BSD licensed code, but not the other way around.

Therefore, if Microsoft's license allowed it to be used in BSD code then it could be used in GPL code.

You may be thinking of the original BSD "advertising clause" license which this resembles, but this is not what "BSD license" means today.

And more thing...

[SlashCrunchPop]

I win!

Now that we've established that Google is the proper authority for all legal matters let's see if you owe me any money:

"you owe me $1000000" - 31 hits
"you don't owe me $1000000" - 0 hits
"you do not owe me $1000000" - 0 hits

I expect to receive the said amount within 24 hours or you will be contacted by my legal representative. Thank you, good day!

True

[spitzak]

If you want your stuff to be GPL-incompatable, you also have to be BSD-incompatable.

As many GPL opponents point out, GPL code can incorporate BSD code but not the other way around. This is the real true argument about GPL being "viral" (this is usually twisted into arguments that using the GPL will "infect" code even if you don't want it to, which is false. But it is true that if you want to release your code GPL, you can absorb BSD and similar code into it. The BSD lets anybody "steal" your code, including both Microsoft and GPL programmers.

Microsoft is a repeat offender

[tepples]

Microsoft has lost, or settled with much publicity, at least three antitrust cases: DR-DOS in USA (settled), IE bundling in USA (lost), Windows Media Player bundling in Europe (lost). After these repeat offenses, trust-busters and courts may be less inclined to agree to give Microsoft a mere slap on the wrist.

Re:Microsoft is a repeat offender

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you forget the stupid bastard someone elected to the White House, and how "corporate friendly" he and his ilk are.

Makes you sick, really.

Include the notices where?

[tepples]

Wasnt it something like this i.e. an advertising clause, which lead to the forking of XFree86 ?

Depends on where you have to "include the notices". If a notice in the source code or in program-name --version is OK, then it's GPL compatible.

Nonsense

[m50d]

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.

No, not true. One, it only applies to patents, not copyright. Second, notice this part: "over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas." So if OOo has a patent on a way to read or write these files, then they can't sue MS over that without giving up their compatiability. But that's all, and I can't imagine it being a problem, since if they have a patent on reading or writing this format then they won't need a license from MS for the format.

Re:WE DONT WANT THEM TO DECIDE FUTURE OPEN STANDAR

[alyandon]

Then it would be impossible for documents created in OO to be read by Microsoft Office. Do you really think any sane business is going to throw away all their perfectly good copies of MS Office to embrace OpenOffice instead of introducing OO slowly into the workplace as an alternative to MS Office?

Re: Where's the catch?

[nyri]

I can't read the license itself, since I don't have Windows and it seems you can only view the license when installing.

Nope, it doesn't prompt any kind of a licence.

As an intresting side note, that is one heck of a large piece of xsd documentation: 2 016 097 bytes.

Re: Where's the catch?

[jc42]

Well, I'd think that it would be a requirement of any government that government documents be readable by citizens. Requiring that a citizen buy a particular piece of software from a particular corporation seems rather dubious. I mean, it's true that governments often make under-the-table deals with the fat cats. We all know that. But something so blatant as saying "You are required to use and obey this document, which can only be read by buying software product X from corporation Y" is way beyond the usual government corruption.

I can see the US government being so corrupt that it requires paying money to an American corporation to read US government documents. But I'd think it unlikely that any other government would do this for long. Paying an American corporation to read your own government's documents is just too bizarre.

This is especially true when the American corporation in question has a history of including spyware in its products. This has gotta scare the people in most other governments.

Ultimately, government documents (at least those available to citizens) will have to be in formats that are formatted to published standards, and it has to be legal for citizens to write software that use those formats. Also, the formats have to be stable over the long term, so that documents from decades in the past remain readable. Anything else is a disaster waiting to happen.

Government documents in a proprietary format is something that just can't be viable over the long term.

Re: Where's the catch?

[nyri]

Licence is written in xsd documents:

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: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true.
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: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp.
THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.
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.

I think the last one is intresting. Even if OpenOffice.org makes their office suit completly Microsoft compilant, they not allowed to mention it!

It feels right...

[leonbrooks]

...to have crash recovery that actually works, and readable HTML output which almost fits through the Validator as-is (as opposed to a big steaming pile of poorly formatted and violently incompatible XMLish). It feels right to have style sheets that don't accidentally reformat past documents. It feels right to not need a separate tool to write (and shortly, read) PDFs. It feels right to be able to throw your document at a script and have it do in a fraction of a second things that would take you hours or days by hand. It feels right to be able to pick up and edit broken MS-Office documents without trashing my app. And so on, ad infinitum.

The only areas where MS-Office wins for me are in startup time and spreadsheet capability. I've played with the pre-2.0 betas, and both issues are already being addressed (to say nothing of OOo getting further ahead in areas were it already wins).

Re: Where's the catch?

[ZB Mowrey]

Permission to use a copyrighted thing is not the same as permission to use a patented thing, and that's different from permission to use a trade secret.

Hey, dude, wake up. If MS reveals trade secrets to the world (as part of some 'open standards' whatsit), they are no longer trade secrets. The protections afforded trade secrets would fall off the minute they voluntarily allow public access to them.

XML Not Round-Trip

[KidSock]

The last time I looked it didn't look like Word could make the round trip between Word's internal representation and XML. You can import and XML file and you can export programmatically constructed bits but you CANNOT EDIT the document and then export the whole document as XML such that you can manipulate it and then reimport the XML and end up with what you started minus the changes. Without this "round-trip" capability Word's XML capability is basically useless for many apps.

Re: Where's the catch?

[idlake]

According to the FAQ linked from the story, Microsoft gives you a perpetual patent license

It's useless if it's not transferable because Microsoft could stop handing out licenses to new users at any time.

hate ...

[Tinkster]

That's not really the point, the problem is that they can still embed ANYTHING into XLM as long as it has its binary-tag ... look at any which document in any text-editor and tell me how much information you can extract using OTHER XML tags than that ...

Old news - they announced this in 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

They announced this on Nov 17, 2003 - http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/nov0 3/11-17XMLRefSchemaEMEAPR.asp

Re GPL incompatibility with design science license

[Hanzie]

Seems to me you could just dual license everything. I'm of the impression that if you release your work under both the DSL and GPL simultaneously, you're covered. Obviously, it would also be GPL compatible.

I believe there are a few FOSS projects working that way.

No sublicensing means...?

[Anonymous Coward]

So explain this to me. If I download a (future) free software word processor which uses these schemas and I want to make a change to the source code I need to go talk to Microsoft to get my own license?

Doesn't this pretty much make this useless with most (all?) free software licenses?

Correction: XML IS Round-Trip

[KidSock]

This is incorrect. I was wrong. I just tried messing around with Word 2003's XML capabililty and it actually looks quite good. It makes the round trip no problem. And the structure is fairly reasonable. I didn't try manipulating any tables or anything. Certainly it's not perfect but I have to admit that I was wholely wrong. Word DOES make the XML -> EDIT ->XML round-trip.

Lotus Office's file formats are not patented...

[leonbrooks]

...or at least not directly by IBM.

Companies refuse to volunteer information for a large variety of reasons starting with the absence of any clear and immediate profit in doing so, and not wanting to be held responsible for any code that they release.

Re:Re GPL incompatibility with design science lice

[m50d]

Yes, but in that case I can't use anyone else's GPL code in my app, which I'm sure I'd want to do sooner or later.

Re:Re GPL incompatibility with design science lice

[Hanzie]

If you don't mind me asking,

What exactly is the difference between the licenses, and why is the DL better for you? More specifically, why is the GPL not your first choice? I'm not evangelizing, I'm really curious.

Re:Re GPL incompatibility with design science lice

[m50d]

The only difference, pretty much, is that the DSL removes the program-specific bits of the GPL, generalising "source code" and "object code" so that it makes sense for anything. I'd prefer to use it because that way I could distribute everything under DSL, rather than using one license for the program, another for the documentation, and a third for media like sounds. I can just use the GPL for everything with additional definitions so that source means my docbook files, the wav versions of sounds I distribute as oggs, etc. but that's basically what the DSL does, so it would be nicer to use the DSL and not worry about clarifying the definitions. Or I could just ignore it and say my program is GPL without mentioning the docs and media, which is what I usually do, but I feel DSL for everything would be a better way.