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. :)

[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. :)

[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.

Nooo...

[sandstorming]

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

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.

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.

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).

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!

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...

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:Patents

[Tony Hoyle]

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

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.