Microsoft Receives Open Source VIP Blessing

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to let us know that Larry Rosen has given his blessing to the new terms that Microsoft is Making their Office XML Reference Schema available under. Rosen, "the attorney that wrote the book on open source licensing and the man who was the Open Source Initiative's first general counsel and secretary," described this move as the "most significant olive branch to date" to come from the Redmond software giant.

Comments

Is this really open source ?

[axonis]

Isn't this really just a standards specification for the office file format in XML and thus has nothing to do with open source since Microsoft is not providing any code ?

Re:Is this really open source ?

[PhilHibbs]

It's about open formats that can be implemented in Open Source. No, they aren't providing any code, no-one said they are.

Good on Microsoft...

[MosesJones]

Come on guys, cut down the flames and lets think... its only a SMALL start but it is a very significant start. While this might be a one-off tactical move its from one of the most important divisions in Microsoft, its an important move. This is Microsoft ACTIVELY accepting and PROMOTING an Open Source licensing model.

Dinosaurs take a long time to turn (remember IBM?)... has the first synapse fired?

Applaud them when they do good things, it gives more weight to your later critisism.

Re:Good on Microsoft...

[WindBourne]

Or could it be that MS is simply doing a tactical move to hold off OO (and others) from making inroads?

Personaly, I will wait and see how real this is. So far, every single time that MS has done something to support a standard or OSS, it turns out to be a trap. Think in terms of their recent attempt at stopping spam via DNS.

Let's wait for the licence of patents

[eleknader]

Yes, the format will be open.

What Microsoft is likely to do is:
- add own extentions and not release them
- forbid relicencing of patents so that no implementation can be released under LGPL / GPL

IMHO this is just a trick. MS wants everybody to wait for 18 months before this is really released, and prevent Open Source competition with patent licence restrictions.

We'll see this after two years, I hope I'm wrong but if this happends, I'll come back and say:

See, I told you so! :)

Eleknader

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Alphix]

XML is just a language, you can make the documents as incomprehensible as you want....

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<legalnote>
        <warning>This document scheme is patented, copyright protected and trademarked</warning>
        <uspto>US1234567</uspto>
</legalnote>

<blob type="binary" encryption="proprietary 40-bit">
        <key type="public" enc="hex">
                e5e9fa1ba31ecd1ae84f75caaa474f3a663f05f4
                bd30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf
        </key>
        <data enc="hex">
                2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd
                7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25bb1da3e38bd30361a
        </data>
</blob>

<blob type="image" codec="proprietary">
        <data enc="hex">
                30361aa855686bde0eacd7162fef6a25fe97bf527a25b
                2bb80d537b1da3e38bd30361aa855686bde0eacd30361
        </data>
</blob>

Re:Back in Mass.

[vidarh]

They were threatening no such thing. They standardised on ODF and made it clear they'd be happy to work with anyone who - by the time the policy goes into force in 2007 - supports ODF in the appropriate way in their software.

That MS chose to present that as if they were being excluded is more about MS' fear of competition and the free market than about reality.

Re:Isn't XML readable anyways?

[Vegard]

The pitfalls could be summarized into these three points, as I see it:

1) Patents/licenses.

Do Microsoft have any patents to any methods/techniques in the XML schemas? Patents seem to be granted on pretty much anything, nowadays (that's another discussion), but even if it's non-valid, open source-developers can rarely afford to either contest or license use of a patent.

If Microsoft makes a blanket license to use any patented method they might have claim on relating to the format, no questions asked, and with a right to sublicense, kudos to them. If not, it's not an open format.

There was also some technicalities regarding "a conforming implementation". Does this mean that you're not allowed to implement support for any extensions that are non-conforming to the specification? Are Microsoft the only ones allowed to do that? (Microsoft doesn't actually have a good track-record for following specifications - not even their own ones).

That leads us into point 2:

2) Is Microsoft itself going to conform to the specification, or are they going to embrace and extend their own formats? If they are, this means that the situation won't be much better than today, as we're forever stuck with reverse-engineering "the newest Microsoft Office formats". Making an XML specification itself changes nothing. The value in this XML specification coming from Microsoft, is that it promises interoperability with and long-term-archivability of documents written in Microsoft office, something that's been problematic up to now.

If this is just a "snapshot", however, something that some version of Microsoft office once used, but you can't be sure that *any* Microsoft Office-document can be opened with just implementing the specification, we gain nothing. Nothing at all. Then, it's just a fake bone, a PR-stunt, to keep off ODF competition.

ODF of course have the same problems, but at least that format comes from the open source world, which means that at least the open source implementations (that are likely to become the "reference implementations") can be studied to see what the hell they have changed and why they're not conforming.

- Vegard

yawn

[Tom]

Its called the bait and switch, and I'm surprised someone so experienced falls for it.

In short: Sure they'll release specs. And just as certainly that which is actually implemented in the next office version will be something different. Probably minor, but crucial differences. Minor enough to be able to say "*shrug*, we just made a few updates and extensions" and crucial enough to prevent interoperability.

Re:Back in Mass.

[QuietLagoon]

If by 'desparate' you mean 'responding to the market' then yes, they are.

Microsoft doesn't "respond to the market". Microsoft "protects its monopoly".

In this instance, Microsoft saw a significant threat to its MS Office monopoly when Massachusetts decided to support an open document format that others and Microsoft could support. That removed a key advantage that Microsoft holds, i.e., the ability to completely control the document format(s) of office productivity products.

Once Microsoft has lost the advantage of file format control, where is Microsoft's advantage?

Microsoft's biggest fear is having to compete in an open, fair marketspace, without having the ability to leverage its desktop monopoly, or proprietary file formats and protocols, to lock up new markets.

Still Does Not Meet MA's Definition Of Open

[codepunk]

This still does not meet MA's Defininition of a Open Format. Anyone listening to the hearings knows that MA's definition of a Open Format includes the ability of mulitple vendors to have equal input to the format specification. MS soley controls the MS XML format therefore it does not meet the MA qualification as a Open Format.

Now of course I fully expect crooked politics and money to fix that little loop hole.