Slashdot Mirror
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.
I'm recycling a comment from another AC in another Scuttlemonkey/**Beatles-Beatles post. This guy's getting worse than Roland Picklepail:
Am I the only person who has noticed the numerous stories that get posted by *--Beatles-Beatles? Am I also the only person who has noticed that the link used in is name is a constantly changing URL (depending on the story) with pointers to various scammy sites? Is it not obvious what he's doing? He's using the awesome PageRank of slashdot do promote his sites based on searches that have the word Beatles in them.
It's a small price to pay for free advertising. Find a story, summarize it in 5 minutes, post to slashdot, and get a pagerank boost that advertisers would pay hundreds (or maybe thousands) for. (Text links on high-ranking sites is big business - just ask oreilly).
Slashdot should at least put a ref=nofollow in the links to submitters (or better yet, only link the submitter's name to his/her user page).
In closing, a quick bit of WHOIS shows that all the sites linked by **B-B are registered to Carl Fogle. Carl, cut this crap out.
This move has put Microsoft back in the race in Massachusetts. They were previously threatening to disqualify MS due to not supporting any standards.
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 ?
bæ8Ã0sÃOE?5r©oÂÃ?âz:ÃÃAÃ?ÃOEÂ6fXÃ?]Â
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.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Who cares?
Slashdot needs content and the guy is providing it. If he's profitting from it, well good for him. He's smarter than the rest of us.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Take a look at Groklaw's comparison of XML formats and tell me if you think MS's XML is human-readable! :o)
So.. it has come to this
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
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>
Well, in fact, yes I have. That's how it was originally.
"We come swinging the olive branch of peace."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You definitely have a point there. Might be something taco should look into? But just remember your point always has more impact when you sign your post with your name and not just AC.
If you believe in it stand up for it don't just hide in the back ground.
It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
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
XML is just a language, you can make the documents as incomprehensible as you want....
True, but you gave a bad example, as you were illustrating how embedded binary information can look incomprehensible, which is irrelevant.
XML can be made difficult to read through the use of meaningless tag names or attributes.
The point of XML is that it can be made easily human readable (and good XML should be) - in fact this was one of the original design considerations.
come on... top ten post.............
Daddy needs a free iPod...
"Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Who cares?
/. editor. Maybe he's providing content, but maybe 20 other people provide the same content and are rejected in favour of this guy. Maybe Scuttlemonkey even gets a small kickback for favouring him.
I do, and apparently many others. The problem isn't one guy posting stuff with links to his various websites. That's ok.
The problem is a potential collaboration between this guy and a
And that's where it crosses the line. It certainly is interesting to see that all of his postings were approved by Scuttlemonkey. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The original company name is MicroSoft, hence the abbreviation to MS. Go look at some old MS products, and you will see the original logo.
Here is a dumb thought...
Don't click on his|her link.
Except it doesn't matter whether anyone here clicks on the link, google's pagerank system is the one "clicking on the link" - the end result being an increase in the guy's ranking in google so that people who don't even know what slashdot is will see the guy's site come up in searches for "beatles" and they will click on the link through google instead.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Quote of Rosen from the article: "The first reaction people will have is, "where's the catch?" I don't see anything we can't live with. We can participate in crafting the standard in ECMA, we can read and write Office 2003 files in open source applications, and we don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft to do so. It's a good start." (Emphasis mine.)
As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.
Isn't this a Microsoft Bait-and-Switch? They make enough changes in terms on the legacy Office 2003 schema to continue their lock-in in Mass., but when the state has to update to Office 12 new patented and licensed "extensions" will lock out any competitive options.
Make no mistake, locking out others and maintaining position as The Monopoly is the business plan here.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
...Firefox plugin that reads ODFs? I know this is offtopic, but this would really be an easy way to spread ODF and show the world that ODF can really be usefull in interoperability....
Sorry again for the offtopic...
> The point of XML is that it can be made easily human readable
True, but neither embedded binary information nor obfuscated tags are irrelevant since we are discussing whether opening up the XML formats will actually result in an open standard which can be implemented by competitors.
The point I tried to make is that there is a large number of tricks (binary data, links to external data in proprietary formats, patents, obfuscation, writing non-compliant documents, "extending" the standard, etc) which can be utilized to create non-interoperable file formats even if they are based on XML...creating a good and genuinely open XML format requires the will to do so...and somehow I have the feeling that the will of some parties is not that strong.
I've seen Microsoft referred to in a lot of ways they wouldn't use themselves.
FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs
Here are the ones (currently indexed by Google) that were:
Wifi Camera Uploads without Computer
Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses
Cisco Updates Network Security Technology
Google and Oregon Launch Open Source Initiative
Open-Source Insurance
Archaeological [sic] Uncovers a New Name
New Server Chip Niagara
Sprint Launchings Music to Mobile Downloads
MIT Wireless Campus Tracking Users
Consumer Friendly Downloads?
Paris Accelerates Move to Open Source
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.
Got Code?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125
I'll let you judge for yourself how good or bad it is:
MS XML />
</w:rPr>
<w:t>this is bold</w:t>
</w:r>
<w:r> <w:rPr> <w:b
OpenDocument
<text:span text:style-name="Strong_20_Emphasis"> this is bold </text:span>
XHTML
<b>this is bold</b>
As I understand it (imperfectly, for sure) there are legaly significant differences between the XML schema for Office 2003 and the upcoming Office 12.
.doc as their primary format within MS-Office. Near as I can tell, Microsoft is merely trying to cloud the issue in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
There are major differences, both technically and legally, between MS-Office 2003 XML and MS-Office 12 XML. Microsoft is submitting the MS-Office 2003 XML schema to ECMA; so far, they have not indicated they are doing the same with the MSO 12 schema. Also, their covenant not to sue over patents is specific to the 2003 schema. Finally, the 2003 xml schema is optional; it's my understanding that the MSO 12 schema is the primary format for the upcoming version of MS-Office.
Microsoft loses nothing by offering up the 2003 schema as a sacrificial lamb; most people still use
Of course, I could be wrong. But I don't think so.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Why should software be different than nuts and bolts? Large detailed standards are not a bad thing. Now, if you can show that ODF is poorly designed compared with Microsoft's format, then I will listen. From the review of the two formats on Groklaw, I am actually inclined to prefer ODF to Microsoft's Office XML. ODF uses XLink, rather than reinventing that wheel, and ODF allows for mixed content (text and tags within the same parent tag) just like (X)HTML.
Think global, act loco
Personally, if MS ever does fully release their current MSWord Document Format to to the public, my belief is that two things will happen:
1: It will become the default save format, and essentially require everyone back to the days of Word 95/97 to upgrade to the next Office suite giving MS lots of $$$ that the haven't been able to get otherwise with their bloatware releases of features almost nobody needs -- except to read documents from other people.
2: The moment XML Doc comes into use, MS will introduce Enhanced Document+ as their preferred format, complaining that they need to get new important features to the user as quickly as possible and that the standards process is too slow for this. Of course by the time that ED+ format is standardized and implmeneted by anyone besides MS (who didn't announce this to anyone until they had their fully debugged version rolling off the CD presses) MS will again be years ahead of the competition. They'll just wear down the other implementers on the basis of their larger bankroll to pay for new development, and this post will become an interesting historical curiosity under the I-Told-You-So department of Slashdot.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."