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. :)

[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. :)

[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. :)

[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. :)

[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. :)

[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. :)

[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. :)

[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.

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.

Wait....

[bizpile]

...does this make them Communist sympathizers?

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.

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.

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...

[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:Now...

[aussie_a]

how are we going to demonize Microsoft?

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

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. :-)

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: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).

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...

[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.

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!

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?

[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

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?

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

[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

[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.

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: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?

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

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: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.

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.

Re:Patents

[Tony Hoyle]

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

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: 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.

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.

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: 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.

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: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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

Yeah but...

[Spy der Mann]

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

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.

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: 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.

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.

Not always

[ZigMonty]

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

The rebel doesn't always win.

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: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.

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.

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!

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.