Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Open Document Standard Not So Open
avik42 wrote to mention an EWeek article discussing Microsoft's attempts at an Open Document Standard. From the article: "According to a Microsoft representative, 'The covenant language is what was referred to as the updated license for the Open XML formats that will be submitted to ECMA International for the standardization process.' The only difference between Microsoft's November 2003 open and royalty-free license for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas and today's Office 2003 license, according to the company, is that 'Microsoft is offering a covenant not to sue for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas.'" We reported on this initiative when it was first announced.
I think they're going to keep releasing really small parts as open source, just to get people believe they're the good guys again.
[sig]
I agree with Stallman, who says:
"designed to prohibit all free software. It covers only code that implements, precisely, the Microsoft formats, which means that a program under this license does not permit modification."
This control that Microsoft wants to maintain has two problems. One, programmers are not free to modify the document format to suit their particular needs. This limits freedom and innovation in many ways.
Two, it means that the future direction of the standard is not truly free or open. Only MS can decide what the next incarnation will be like? Only MS can control the future directions of our document format? That is just another form of control. It still means that our data is locked into a format that we don't really own or control. Yes, being somewhat open, it would be easier, in the future, to migrate to another standard, but ultimately the user still gets screwed. It should be obvious that it's better to have a format that is decided upon in a more transparent and communal way. If new features are needed, they can be debated and possibly added to future versions. If someone doesn't like the trend that the format is taking, they can fork it and create a derivative format (that will presumably not have the blessing of the official versions' name, since it's not incompatible... but that's okay). In the long run, perhaps this variant becomes the "next big thing." With an MS-style control, that innovation cannot happen, and the future of the document standard is weakened.
In short, Microsoft doesn't understand what we mean when we say "we want an open standard."
Can a covenant not to sue even be considered to be some kind of license?
I think a covenant not to sue is basically a promise, nothing more.
In contrast, a license grants certain rights to the licensee.
In what way does Microsoft's covenant actually grant any kind of rights to a licensee?
things have changed. Just this AM, people were saying that MS should be given a chance. Oh, well. I still want to see how this shakes out. Part of me hopes that MS will see the light, but I doubt it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In a stunning turn of events, Massachusetts state secretary of administration and finance Thomas Trimarco has revealed that Microsoft's recent efforts to make Office XML a ratified ECMA standard may indeed make the format acceptable to the government. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had previously rejected Office XML in favor of OpenDocument and PDF formats.
Even if it were really open, the other question is how to deal with embedded vector graphics? Right now, the only formats that MS supports are .emf & .wmf. These are MS proprietary formats and they only display reliably if you're working on a Windows machine. If you're stuck with documents with significant embedded emf graphics and you don't want to use Windows, you're currently S.O.L. Of course, the ultimate answer would be for MS to support .svg in its Office products, but it's not clear that they will ever want to give up this subtle little lock that ties Office to Windows.
If ms had not been forced to support web standards ove the years, you probably would just be seeing a 'please spend a minium of $500 on ms products to view these pages'
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said "The commonwealth is very pleased with Microsoft's progress in creating an open document format. If Microsoft follows through as planned, we are optimistic that Office Open XML will meet our new standards for acceptable open formats."
Romney, for those who don't know, seems to be positioning himself for a run at the 2008 Republican nomination for president. Those MS campaign dollars must look very tempting to him. But political corruption is being uncovered on an almost daily basis.
Better watch your step watch, Mitt. You're not in Utah anymore. This is the land of the Patriots. We'll tar and feather your ass. You'll be romney.tfz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_and_feather
It may be compatible with some FOSS licenses (Apache License, for example) but it may not be compatible with the GPL. I.e. the covenant places an additional restriction that the party using the patented inventions not sue Microsoft or any affiliate (read: anybody) over patent violations in these schemas. RMS has said that similar language in the Apache license makes it incompatible with the GPL v2, so maybe Microsoft is trying to select against the GPL in terms of its formats?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP