Legal Counsel Advises Against Accepting OOXML Pledge

ozmanjusri writes "A legal analysis of Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (OSP), which was purportedly written to give developers protection from patent risk, says the promise should not be trusted. According to the Software Freedom Law Center, 'While technically an irrevocable promise, in practice the OSP is good only for today.' This is on the back of a chaotic ISO meeting to resolve outstanding specification problems. The session was described by Tim Bray as 'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t. This was horrible, egregious, process abuse and ISO should hang their heads in shame for allowing it to happen.' The advice would seem to throw more doubt on OOXML's suitability as an international document standard. Microsoft responded to these assertions stating that they've already taken steps to answer these concerns"

Comments

Lol, Microsoft Standards

[Jax Omen]

Love the irony. And does it surprise ANYONE that lawyers are advising against trusting Microsoft's pledge?

Re:Lol, Microsoft Standards

[tristian_was_here]

Does the pledge have anything to do with loosing software freedoms by any chance or is that just the EULA?

Re:Lol, Microsoft Standards

[PitaBred]

It has everything to do with loosing software freedoms. They'll allow people to do things with their patents without fear of a lawsuit, or so they claim.

Oh, wait... you probably meant LOSING software freedoms. That's what will probably actually happen if anyone goes along with it.

Re:Lol, Microsoft Standards

[calebt3]

If they really meant it, there would be no reason not to Public Domain it (except for it's value as an asset on the balance sheet, but MS can afford to lose that)

Re:Lol, Microsoft Standards

[Anonymous Coward]

You meant to write "... can afford to loose that)"

Because you know, one must perpetuate missssssspelllllings and bad grammar at all times.

Microsoft's Concerns.

[twitter]

To perpetuate their late 80's file and OS monopolies. There is nothing subtle or difficult to understand about this.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[NoobHunter]

I love how Microsoft's OOXML standards push is a push to make a file standard that was obsolete 20 years ago what everone should use today.

Then again, does it surprise anyone that a company that built their latest product on a model that they designed on 386 and 486(With Math Co-Processor) are trying to force a standard that represents anything BUT Open Source?

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[SgtChaireBourne]

There is no doubt on OOXML. It's bad by pretty much every metric one can come up with. While the Software Freedom Law Center contribution is very valuable, the summary reduces this value and snubs ISO at the same time: the decision and process is not up to MS here, it is up to ISO. ISO is not in the business of creating standards. It has the purpose of evaluating finished specifications, which OOXML is clearly not.

There's not a single implementation of OOXML in the wild. There are variations and partial implementations, but since the specification itself is neither complete nor finished, it's not ready for ISO.

All MS is doing here is wasting time and money. When MS gets serious about interoperability, it will adopt the OpenDocument Format.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=3&mode=nested&commentsort=1&op=Change&sid=433454&cid=22216366&pid=22216366
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=428828&cid=22185114
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=465608&cid=22545346
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=486346&cid=22741064

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[inTheLoo]

It's really the US branch of ISO that's gotten snubbed and for good reason. Microsoft stacked the committee and the US ISO group let them get away with it, so the US ISO group's opinion is that OOXML is AOK. Besides the technical issues raised, there's that little fundamental issue of having two standards that do exactly the same thing. Microsoft's manipulation of the US group is a tremendous shame and ISO needs to protect it's reputation by doing something about it.

While it may be obvious that OOXML is incomplete, Microsoft will tell you otherwise. It's what their new Office suite uses by default. Everyone with any sense turns it off but it's "in the wild".

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[MightyMartian]

Let it (or rather the partial implementation found in Office 2007) run in the wild. It's just another proprietary document format.

The issue here is that the ISO seems poised to declare an unimplementable, patent-poisoned format the thumb's up, so that Microsoft reps and resellers can go to various governments, institutions and corporations currently looking to mandate open document-only formats and say "We've got an ISO ceritified format here in OOXML, so you don't have to use that nasty ODF".

I wouldn't care if there were a hundred open document formats, as long as anyone, using just the specs in a cold room could implement software that could open the file. We all know that that is impossible for OOXML, because it's incredibly complex, invokes a number of proprietary specs which a guy in a cold room couldn't access. So such a guy would be faced with precisely what the OO.org and KOffice teams have been faced with, reverse engineering to get it to work.

I'm sure Microsoft will trot out all its spokespersons, both open (like a guy from the Office team) or in secret (like any number of shills you'll see here). If Microsoft was truly interested in an open spec it would immediately instruct the ISO that it's removing OOXML until it's simplified and has no links to proprietary formats, and then would release it under an accepted open license (and not one of its crapola licenses).

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't you ignore him then? Nothing says I don't mean what I say like saying something you don't mean.

I am a big advocate of free software, but I cringe every time I get lumped up along with people like you.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I wouldn't care if there were a hundred open document formats, as long as anyone, using just the specs in a cold room could implement software that could open the file.

You make some good points and I agree with most of them. As for multiple standards, I agree in principal, but in this particular instance I think mitigating factors apply. Multiple standards are fine, but when a criminal monopolist completely ignores ongoing development of an open standard and intentionally eschews implementing that standard and waits until that real standard is approved and implemented by potential competitors before attempting to get approval for a different, new standard... well I think that constitutes abuse of their monopoly position to derail the existing standard. Multiple standards are fine, in general, but when dealing with a market where one company is a monopoly, waiting until competitors all have working versions of a different standard before introducing one of their own compromises the free market even if the standard for OOXML itself was legitimately open.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Apple treat us like dirt?

http://slashdot.org/~twitter/journal/198016

Man, I wish I'd been there.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Zeinfeld]

Err, 'lawyers object', what lawyers? Would these be a bunch of academics who have come across the documents and made an independent judgment? Of course not, this is a paper by a bunch of folk who were already opposed and as such its a very partisan analysis.

As for the alleged effect on the ISO process, its actually irrelevant. ISO certainly accepts encumbered standards all the time. They might have a disclosure policy but even that isn't certain because of the role ISO plays. All ISO does is to endorse the output of other standards bodies, usually national standards bodies but also ITU, IEEE, ANSI and in theory IETF (this has never happened but could happen if the IETF was to forward its standards to ISO).

The terms of the open promise are irrelevant because there is no requirement for Microsoft to offer any IPR terms beyond those required by ETSI which are RAND. Microsoft has clearly met this requirement.

Nor is the fact that this is a 20 year old format a disqualification. Standards are what is used, old standards are probably better candidates for standard status than new ones.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fairly easy to see you're just karma whoring to get out of the -1 posting level. You post something like this and then five minutes later you devolve back again into the usual annoying crap.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=474092&cid=22639320

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[spitzak]

Why is there never any comment when somebody writes "Microsuck" or "Winblows", but this rather harmless dollar sign (which I personally find very useful to avoid reading the abbreviation as Multiple Sclerosis or Miss) always brings out this troll? I think somebody's feelings are being hurt. Awwwww....

M$ M$ M$ M$ M$!!!! Whoopie!

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Stephen Samuel]

1. SFLC is real lawyers. Eben Moglen is a real and practicing lawyer... Yeah, he moonlights as a law professor, he also spent time helping the the most respected judge on the Supreme Court of the USA write the court's decisions000000000000. I'd say that he's a far better lawyer than 90% of the hacks that you'll find in the yellow pages.
2. What MS is doing to the ISO process is a problem in, and of itself. Think of turning the SCOTUS into a profit-driven enterprise, and you'll get a sense of what they're doing. They're turning what had been (until last year) a respected and reasonably neutral technical committee and turning it into a corporate lapdog. Unless what they do is reversed, people will no longer have strong trust of what comes out of the ISO. What the ISO fast-track process in designed to do is, is vet standards that comes from other bodies and only pass them if they're up to ISO standards. The normal track is designed to either generate a standard, or work on a almost-OK standard until it's up to ISO standards. To the extent to which MSDOC (aka OOXML) could be considered an almost-OK standard, it should have been put into the standard track, not fast-tracked far before it's time.
3. Microsoft has been pushing MSDOC by saying that it's an open standard -- that's one of their selling points. If the open promise is garbage, then that's like selling a 'car' with balsa-wood wheels. It doesn't do what it looks like it's designed to do... It won't even get you safely home.
4. It's not a 20 year old format. It's a 20 year old format in an XML wrapper being touted as XML. Once again, it doesn't do what it looks like (and has been advertised as) it was designed to do -- which is provide the benefits of XML. The binary blobs inside the format make it XML-opaque.
   It's like putting a layer of mud in between two panes of glass, and selling the result as a 'transparent solution'. The glass is transparent, but the mud layer makes it useless as a window). People who buy into the 'transparent' PR will be hosed, but they won't know that they're hosed until the so-called transparent solution is installed.

Troll?

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Wraith, The]

I am not so sure they are serious laywers. If you look at the patent licensing by Sun (who contributed StarrOffice Patent Technology and IBM (that contributed Lotus patented technolgy) for ODF the same issues arise.

Specifically the IBM Interoperability Specifications Pledgehttp://www-03.ibm.com/linux/opensource/isplist.shtml is also only listing the versions it applies for (currently listing ODF v1.0 and ODF v1.1). Strangely the SFLC does not name this about the IBM licensing when making an analysis on ODF licensing but does name the version issue when reviewing Micrsofts OSP.

Also on their ODF license analysis the SLFC specifically mentions that OASIS rules on IP rights require participants in the standardization to RAND license those. However on the other hand the SLFC does not mention that Ecma International of which Office Open XML is an official standard requires all participant in their technical commitees AND ALSO all members that vote to approve a standard to RAND license their patents.

So on major issues the SFLC determines to ingnore information that are actually applies to both standards making their analysis on both OOXML but also their previous analysis on ODF very shaky and unreliable.

Apperantly a legal analysis by the SFLC is now no longer a legal analysis but a politics document and the opinion of the SFLC as a source of legal information will be a lot poorer after they make such biased choices on what to include and what not to include in their legal analysis based on what they want the outcome to be.

Or mayby even on how much money IBM is paying them to state this at this particular moment in time...

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Zeinfeld]

The question is not his competence, its whether he is giving an even handed evaluation of the positions. Clearly he is not since he is principal advocate for a partisan organization in this dispute. Lawyers are not scientists, when they make arguments they are not attempting to arrive at the truth, they are attempting to present the best case for their particular side. In short, lawyers have a tendency to think its ok to lie when they make their case, they lie by omission, by only presenting one side.

You cannot rely on qualifications when you lie by omission. We can rely on this guy only to tell us the best arguments for his side.

There really is no difference between the IBM and Microsoft promises on the points he considers. It is a dishonest argument to make.

There might well be difficulties with the GPL. The objective in the promise was compatibility with the Apache license, not the GPL.

And accusing people who argue against your position as being trolls is just more abuse. I write standards for a living. From the start the ODF faction have been trying to hijack the process so that they can use it to force governments to adopt Open Office over Microsoft Office. It is an utterly transparent motive despite the repeated denials (lawyers tend to tell a lot of lies). Thats not what the process is for.

The ISO people did what they did because they were fed up of this circus. It was like having the scientologists campaigning.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Stephen Samuel]

First you attack him claiming that he's not really a lawyer. Then, when that point is blunted, you attack him because he is a lawyer. If you balance the equation, it becomes clear that his being a lawyer has nothing to do with it. This is now clearly an ad persona attack -- presumably because you don't like (or were paid to dislike) the conclusion that his group came to.

Re:Microsoft's Concerns.

[Zeinfeld]

No, on both occasions I pointed out that he is an advocate for a cause. He is certainly not giving an impartial legal opinion on this case so whether or not he is capable of doing so is irrelevant.

In other news I hear that the RNC really does not think that Hillary or Obama is ready to be commander in chief while strangely enough they consider McCain to be so. And the directors of Pepsi think that people do prefer the taste to Coke.

Lots of lawyers in the RNC, you know. I am sure that they are all good upstanding examples of the breed (except for the one that allegedly just stole $750K, oh and the ones that were involved in Ambramoff, oh and the ones involved in the email server business.

Talking ab out pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

Is there any legal indication that the GPL is revocable?

When considering the case of a sole developer (for example, me), can I legally revoke the agreement if I wish to do further work proprietary?

I've heard yes and no both.. They both logically cannot both be true.

One could substitute any similar open-source freedom based licenses instead of the GPL.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

You can't effectively revoke the GPL, once you've licensed your code using it--in any of its versions. The cat's out of the bag once you've pledged it. There is no mechanism to call it all back, once released in this way. You can fork your own code, go a different direction, but the basis of that code is GPL for better (and rarely worse).

Re-write it? Easily done in most cases. The copyright nature of the release remains for the duration of the law in effect at the time the work was copyrighted (or lefted, or whatever).

The arguments you've heard about revoking GPL don't hold water, I'm afraid.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[jrumney]

When considering the case of a sole developer (for example, me), can I legally revoke the agreement if I wish to do further work proprietary?

If you are the sole developer, you could certainly use a different license for future releases containing your further work, if that is what you mean. Under the GPL you are still the exclusive copyright holder, and you can do what you like with the code, including distributing it under different terms at whim. I doubt you could successfully revoke licenses already issued though. Perhaps the difference between the yes and no answers you have heard revolve around the interpretation of whether "revoke the agreement if I wish to do further work proprietary" only applies to future licenses or past ones too.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[cromar]

Yes, correct. Once you have licensed people to use your code under the GPL, you cannot arbitrarily cancel that license (contract) without the other party's consent. However, you don't have to keep releasing your code under the GPL to new parties (although you can't stop people already licensed). *You*, as the copyright owner lose no rights to the code beyond those granted to the licensees under the GPL.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Bruce Perens]

"Yes" and "no" are not complete answers to this question, it's more complicated than that, so "yes" and "no" really can both be true for different parts of the question. A better answer is that you have all of the rights of a copyright holder to license your own code differently, but the promises you've already made are still binding on you. You can not tell the folks that you've given GPL code that they no longer have the rights that you gave them under the GPL. So, what you get is that the code you released will be out in the world under the GPL forever. You can also put a commercial license on that code and sell the license, and people who want to not have to comply with the GPL will buy that license. Any new code you make doesn't have to go under the GPL.

Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! You aren't the copyright holder to that stuff. You have to pay them or otherwise get the rights from them before you can do that.

Bruce

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

An interesting case is this article discussing exactly that.

Eben Moglen was contacted (lawyer for FSF) and said that CPhack had that problem, and was never resolved.

The best explanation is that explicit language would be needed to be added in the GPL and other type-like liceses to hold true. As it seems, as long as there is not intertwining copyright interests, redacting the GPL seems legal. Yuck.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

There are a few theories of law (at least in the US) that would tend to negate the redaction. You can't really have it both ways. Once GPL'd, there are many theories that allow torts and injury remedies based on having used the GPL-licensed code. Published, the GPL code presents specific tenets of use, including many rights given subsequent users. Pulling those rights would be a train wreck; lots of injuries. I respect Moglen, and IANAL; however, I see too many possible injuries to users to try to revert or alter the license-- unless it's a superset of the GPL, and even then, it's tenuous.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[maxume]

If I own the copyright to some code and I release it under the GPL, I do not give up my right to release it under a different license. I can't stop other people from using and distributing the code I released under the GPL, but I can make a derivative and release it under any license I choose. I think this is mostly a clearer way of stating what you meant in "basis of that code is GPL".

Another reply points out that there haven't been any court decisions about whether it can be withdrawn; the cphack case looks like a weak test of this to me, if the release wasn't agreed to by both copyright holders(are they joint holders?), then it isn't a question of the revocability of the GPL, but a question of whether the code was ever released under the GPL. I doubt any court will end up agreeing that someone can intentionally release work under something like the GPL and then later take it back, but that doesn't make the presence of GPL notice a magic provenance stick.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[hughperkins]

The GPL is a license to use, copy, distribute, and modify a particular set of code.

You can't retroactively say "oh that's no longer gpl! stop using it!" ...but you can release new code without granting the gpl license on the new code.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

---"Yes" and "no" are not complete answers to this question, it's more complicated than that, so "yes" and "no" really can both be true for different parts of the question. A better answer is that you have all of the rights of a copyright holder to license your own code differently, but the promises you've already made are still binding on you.

The question is rather seemingly basic, but gets into the nuts and bolts of contract law. Contract law has different interpretations between counties, states and federal districts. Is there a state in which the law would acknowledge the dissolution of one sided software contract (possibly similar to UCC..)?

If there is, software could be un-GPL'ed. I'm not stating this as a tactic I'd do, but as worries to watch out for in the future games of big software companies.

---Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! You aren't the copyright holder to that stuff. You have to pay them or otherwise get the rights from them before you can do that.

Obviously. That's why I said the code belonged to a single person, as this eliminates even more convoluted copyright debates. I thought it would be a simpler case to test for.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[morgan_greywolf]

Correct. But a clarification for your statement is in order, Bruce:

Don't take other people's GPL modifications to your code and commercial license them! This also applies if your code links to libraries that are released under the GPL. Since the code you linked to becomes part of your program, your program is, in essence, a derived work of the library. For example, if you write a media player that links against libquicktime, then you cannot license libquicktime commercially without the permission of the copyright holder. Since libquicktime is part of your GPL'd program, that means that you can't relicense under anything else without removing the dependency on libquicktime.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

The establishment of copyright becomes the basis for establishing ownership and rights under the work. The GPL doesn't abrogate copyright. Instead, it establishes use of the work under the copyright. If it is released as a GPL work, then the GPL modifies the rights established (if ownership is clear) under the copyright, and subsequent use of the work. We therefore largely agree, excepting that the unquestioning limitations imposed by the GPL on the copyright takes effect at its declaration. It's not the sort of thing where one can say, ok, GPL, then say: no, not GPL. It is, or it is not, in perpetuity of the life of the copyright defined at its declaration. Derivative works are covered by the GPL in inclining clarity through different licensing modifications (2,3). One cannot, however, take it back. It is a subsequent modification that cannot be imperiled by subsequent dictat.

There is case law (sorry, I don't have Lexis, but I recall it clearly enough) that says that one cannot put items into the public domain and recall them. It's a similar principle.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

That's the rub: Under state law (depends which state), sometimes they are irrevocable, and other times they are revocable at will.

The precedent is undetermined at this time. A good lawyer could argue either and screw a lots of people. I'm thinking of X, KDE, open-LDAP, and many other projects that derive work from either single points of failure, or direct forks from proprietary works.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Shimmer]

The question is rather seemingly basic, but gets into the nuts and bolts of contract law.

Unlikely, since the GPL is a license, not a contract.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

Suppose a hunters' cabin had a sign up on it for years that said, "Come on in, just clean up after yourself." Then one day you arrived and it said "No trespassing". Would you expect a judge to rule that the owner had given up the right to control his property because the original sign didn't have a time limit?

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Damocles the Elder]

I've heard yes and no both.. They both logically cannot both be true.

Clearly you're not a Discordian.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[WNight]

What possible connection does that have?

'Copy this hunting lodge on your own land.' might be a valid analogy, but yours is not.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[PitaBred]

Doesn't work that way. Once you've accepted the code under a license (GPL), then it stays under the terms of that license. If you sold someone your house, and all of a sudden said "I actually didn't want to do that, give it back", do you think you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting it back without paying for it and negotiating with the people there as the owners? If you want to release future versions of the software under a different license, feel free to do so. But you can't retroactively relicense something.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[xouumalperxe]

Working Bruce's explanation into a practical example:

1. You publish code under the GPL.
2. People download it, use it, and their usage of the code is bound by the terms of the GPL.
3. You decide to change the license on the code. Since you're the copyright holder, nothing prevents you from doing that.
4. More people get your code from your distribution channel. These people are bound by the new license.
5. The people in point 2, however, agreed to the GPL, not your new license, and you explicitly gave them the right to alter and/or redistribute the code, so they're free to keep on sharing, coming up with a full fledged fork, probaly even selling it.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Bruce Perens]

Contract law has different interpretations between counties, states and federal districts. Is there a state in which the law would acknowledge the dissolution of one sided software contract (possibly similar to UCC..)?

I'm ignoring for the moment the issue of whether it is a contract at all. Some licenses have langugage that makes them revocable. Not the GPL, of course. It's really difficult to make the court agree that other parties should not have a right to rely on your previous promises, if those parties bother to come to court and challenge.

Bruce

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[maxume]

To the extent that something can be put into the public domain, it is done by disclaiming rights. The GPL is an assertion that you will only exercise your rights against someone who fails to act in a certain way regarding your work. Principles regarding a disclaimer aren't going to obviously apply to something that is fundamentally a restriction(people wishing to distribute GPL code are restricted in the sense that they have to follow the GPL in doing so, public domain is the copyright analog to unrestricted).

All I am saying is that if I have thing A and I create copies B and C, and then say to the world "Let the GPL apply to C", I haven't done anything that has any implications on A or B, regardless of whether they are verbatim(modulo licensing text and whatnot) copies of C or not. I can't later try to say that the GPL no longer applies to C, but I can do whatever the heck I want with A and B. TrollTech did this for years, and I'm pretty sure they stopped for community reasons, not legal ones.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Bruce Perens]

Wrong analogy. Suppose the owner of the cabin changed the sign while you were inside. You would have the right to rely on the previous invitation.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

If, in your analogy, C==B==A then the point is moot-- they are the same property. Derivative works are bound by the assertion of the greatest grant of subsequent rights of use to the original work. That kind of three-card-Monty thinking would get thrown out of the lowest court.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Bruce Perens]

The precedent is undetermined at this time.

I don't think you have any reason to say that unless you see anyone actually attempting to do that and a court actually agreeing with them. You can rely on the court enforcing a large body of law, going all the way back to common law of centuries ago, that people have the right to rely on a promise.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[blind biker]

Disclaimer: I have no clue about the GPL outside of common sensical understanding.

So let's imagine this scenario: you publish some code under the GPL. Someone modifies it, and because the original is GPL he/she must also publish his/her modifications (this previous step could be iterated several times by several developers, but one is enough for the example). Now if you try to revoke the GPL, you probably can't close the source for the modified code, because it involves other people's work now, not just yours. You don't have the right to take their work and use it in a closed-source project. IANAL and not a GPL knower, either, but if anything, you might have a chance to revoke the license for the original code you published, but the modified versions should remain in the open, as open.

Or so I think, aniway.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[KDR_11k]

The GPL might apply in perpetuity to the current codebase but if the copyright holder decides not to GPL future changes I don't think the GPL can stop him, the GPL says non-GPL derivatives are copyright infringement (it does not automatically GPL them) and obviously the copyright holder cannot infringe upon his own copyright.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[KDR_11k]

Derivative works are bound by the assertion of the greatest grant of subsequent rights of use to the original work.

In other words any commercial program that uses BSD code must be licensed under the BSD license?

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[micheas]

But, this is what mysql/Sun Micro does.

There is nothing in the GPL that says you are granting exclusive license of the code.

If you are the sole copyright holder (this conversation makes no sense otherwise).

You release A 1.0 under the GPL
You can then release A 1.1 under what ever license you wish. As you own the copyright and are are just on longer offering it under what is for you an old license.

You can even release SoftwareA 1.0 under the GPL and simultaneously release it under a license similar to Microsoft's standard license, and charge $50.00 per copy.

The GPL is not an exclusive license, which opens the door to all sorts of oddities.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

I understand that logic.

But that's only to the original owner of the work that copyrighted it, and his/her designated specific assigns. Others that use the original work under the use of the GPL copyright variants are bound by the GPL. Only the original owner (or assigns) can deviate from the obligations inferred by the modifications pledged by the GPL. Parallel tracks of development are increasingly common-- original owner permitting.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

Good question. I don't know the answer but can guess that it's the extra constraints of the GPL license that cause subsequent use problems for those wishing to take advantage of the BSD licensing premise.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

Yes, that's true. But If I munched the source from soureforge and did something with it (in my case of not being the copyright holder or an assign) then the GPL applies to me. If you, as the copyright holder or assign wants to dinker with it, it's your copyright. Have at it. Once released, users of the code (rather than owners/assigns) are obligated under the usage provisions. They can can copyright their changes at will, but the license that's inherited is GPL. The original copyright holder(s) can mess around as their sense of philosophy dictates.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[maxume]

In that case, you are essentially arguing that holding the copyright is somehow a lesser grant of rights than the GPL. I doubt that this is true.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

Not at all. The copyright owner/assigns can do with the code what they want, but what's published under the GPL remains usable under the constraints of the GPL and subsequent copyright holders. The owner/assigns exclusively can add to the code and have subsequent revisions bound by whatever they choose. But a GPL update to code derived from GPL code is bound by GPL use constraints-- except from the original author/assigns/owners.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[SL Baur]

Is there any legal indication that the GPL is revocable? Er, that's what all the commotion was about a few months ago regarding the GPL V3 and the licensing of the Linux Kernel. Specifically, if you add the "or any later version" clause, you are at the mercy of Richard Stallman to not change the license in a manner that you disagree with.

So yes, if some day there is a GPL V4 that had that kind of language in it and you had the code licensed with the "or any later version" clause, you could.

The fact that the GPL can be changed without your express consent is exactly why Linus made the kernel GPL V2 only.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[maxume]

Then this whole thread was a waste of time. Here's how I started it: "If I own the copyright to some code and I release it under the GPL".

I was never questioning that code published under the GPL is pretty much GPL for life, I was clarifying that the GPL doesn't prevent a copyright holder from doing whatever the hell he wants, except trying to withdraw anything that has been distributed under GPL(including any ongoing obligation to provide source code).

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Atlantis-Rising]

I think even if you did that, you would only be pulling the right of the people to redistribute it. They'd still have it.

Admittedly, I wrote this in about thirty seconds while not paying attention, so YMMV.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[Thomasje]

If YOU write code and release it under the GPL, you can always change your mind later and re-release it under a different license. The copies that were already published are out there; you can't change the terms under which you already licensed THOSE, but remember, you are still the author, and, assuming you didn't do the work under contract for someone else, that makes you the copyright holder.

I suspect many people will tell you that the GPL is irrevocable because the scenario I just described is not typical; most GPL projects are collaborative efforts, and to change the licensing terms, all the copyright holders would have to agree to such a change. For a project of the magnitude of the Linux kernel, say, that would probably be impractical if not downright impossible. BUT, for a project where all copyrights are in one person's or one company's hands (as in the case of GNU software whose copyrights were signed over to the FSF), then yes, it is perfectly fine for such persons or entities to re-release the software under a GPL-incompatible license.

The big point is that there is a crucial difference between what the copyright holder can do, and what a licensee under the GPL can do. Removing the GPL from something you don't hold the copyright to is specifically forbidden; this is by design and this is the quality that MS and other enemies of OSS sometimes refer to as the "cancerous" or "viral" nature of the GPL. But this restriction in no way affects the original author slash copyright holder.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[jwo7777777]

... and neither are you or me from our attempts here to clarify any information whatsoever. A discordian would glory in the parent poster's confusion or deepen it by posting multiple misdirectional links or arguments.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[KDR_11k]

Obviously but the only one who'd revoke the GPL is the owner, it's kinda obvious that you can't revoke licenses on things you don't own.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[KDR_11k]

I'm just thinking the claim was nonsense, there would be no point in even considering derivative works separate if they automatically had all the licensing from the original work attached to them and it would make derivatives from public domain works (like most Disney movies) public domain too.

Re:Talking ab out pledges...

[postbigbang]

There is a fear of derivative inheritance problems. Why is Disney still pushing to keep Mickey copyrighted? Certainly revenue, but what if Mickey falls into the public domain? The original copyright sticks, but what of derivative works-- does a 1955 copyright of Mickey have the same weight if the 1933 Mickey becomes incapable of protection? What of a 2008 copyright on Mickey? When does Mickey get so old that it actually falls outside of the intent of copyright protection and becomes a service mark or a franchise?

If one writes code, and binds it to a license, the copyright has a lot to do with the license granted. When the copyright is mooted by age, what then of derivative works? Will code be so old that it's a moot point anyway?

Sorry; maybe I've had too much coffee.

Tough decision of the day...

[pchoppin]

Yep, this is one of the things that keep me up at night... wondering if I need to consider trusting a Microsoft "promise".

Re:Tough decision of the day...

[piojo]

In all serious, is there any past evidence either way, that Microsoft would or would not respect a promise not to sue somebody for using their protocols/documentation/formats? Many companies use patents in two ways:
- Market fodder. (I.e., "our cool product has patents pending.")
- Defense, so that if somebody sues them, they could probably countersue.

Has Microsoft used patents offensively?

Re:Tough decision of the day...

[compro01]

Has Microsoft used patents offensively? in what regard?

with the FOSS patents thing, hell no. they're rattling a blunt saber. if they were to try it, they'd likely find themselves facing off with IBM, who have a lot more patents than microsoft (~7000 vs. ~42000, IIRC) and the betting is quite good that microsoft infringes on more than a few of those.

It's a trap!

[und0]

Don't look at me, lawyers are saying it! ^__^

Taken steps to *spin* those questions

[Joce640k]

Fixed it for you...

Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Frosty Piss]

I'm in agreement that OOXML is a lousy "standard" and the "pledge" is questionable at best. But this

While technically an irrevocable promise, in practice the OSP is good only for today.

doesn't make a lot of sense. If it's "irrevocable" than it's *not* "in practice ... good only for today". Irrevocable is irrevocable.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[ODBOL]

A quick look at the SFLC's article (http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html) makes this quite clear. OSP provides an irrevocable license to use a specification as it is written today. It makes no commitment whatsoever to license updates. A little bit more reading reveals that the irrevocably licensed uses of the current specification are also very limited.

So, it makes perfect sense, as stated by SFLC, that the license is irrevocable, but has no irrevocable value, since Microsoft has discretion to destroy the value of the licensed behavior. To quote directly:

While technically an irrevocable promise, in practice the OSP is good only for today.

This makes perfectly good sense. The promise is irrevocable. But it's "good"ness may easily be destroyed, by destroying the value of the promised license.

Caveat: I am reporting what I read in the SFLC's article. I have not checked their facts independently.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Bruce Perens]

The reason it's really not irrevocable is that it states in writing that future versions of anything under the promise are not automaticaly under the promise. So, if they add a feature and you were interoperable before, you may not have the right to be interoperable any longer. It's the usual embrance-and-enhance stuff we've seen from Microsoft.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[cloakable]

How about irrevocable, unless we decide to revoke it? I think they're raising doubts, not about the current promise, but about the chances of microsoft changing the promise later.

Therefore, OSP is *technically* irrevocable, under the current version. Microsoft could update the OSP tomorrow, and remove that promise. Is it irrevocable then?

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[TheRaven64]

As I recall, the pledge is only valid for a specific version of OOXML. They could, hypothetically, add a magic number to the start of all OOXML documents saved by MS Office and if you modified your code to understand this number then you would be supporting version n+0.0001 of the standard and thus open to patent lawsuits regarding the entire implementation.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Frosty Piss]

The reason it's really not irrevocable is that it states in writing that future versions of anything under the promise are not automaticaly under the promise.

Sounds a lot like the GPL...

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[csnydermvpsoft]

Sounds a lot like the GPL...

Very true - which is why it is a stupid idea to use the GPL for a file format.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Trevin]

Quite the contrary. From the GPL (version 2) item #2:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Atlantis-Rising]

But the authors of the codebase have no requirement to ensure further versions of the software fall under the GPL (as they are the original owners) which is essentially what is happening.

the GPL, like this license, is a license for the work as it stands. Any further revisions that occur must include their own licenses, which may be different.

Re:Irrevocable is irrevocable.

[Wraith, The]

The reason it's really not irrevocable is that it states in writing that future versions of anything under the promise are not automaticaly under the promise

Actually for Ecma standards this is ensured by Ecma International 'Code of conduct in patent matters' which requires contributors in technical committees and standard approval voters to license their patetns on RAND basis.

So only if Microsoft were to give up using an Ecma International or ISO standard alltogether and go back to a full propriety format they would not have grant patent licensing. This is a very unlikely scenario as new versions of Office would become unsellable if they would go from using a standard to a propriety format especially if they would stop using an ISO insternational standard format.

So actually the ISO standardization is a good lock in for MS Office to keep using an ISO standard format.

irrelevant?

[apodyopsis]

even if OOXML is approved (and lets face it deep wallet large multinationals have a habit of winning these things) its name is MUD everywhere. I really cannot see anybody using it (has MS made it their standard yet?) and the "de facto" standard has a good chance of being ODF. Sooner or later MS will have to accept that.

As for the "agreement" any decisions or choices offered by any corporation will always be biased and in their interests instead of the users.

Re:irrelevant?

[doktor-hladnjak]

OOXML types (docx, xlsx, pptx) are the default file types in Office 2007, which has been out now for over a year. The files are already out in the wild and therefore are becoming a de facto standard. As for its name being mud, I'd say that's really only with the slashdot set. Most people have no idea what's different about these formats (binary vs. XML), let alone that there's a fierce battle being fought in various standards bodies over it.

Re:irrelevant?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

even if OOXML is approved (and lets face it deep wallet large multinationals have a habit of winning these things) its name is MUD everywhere. I really cannot see anybody using it (has MS made it their standard yet?) and the "de facto" standard has a good chance of being ODF. Sooner or later MS will have to accept that.

I disagree. I think your perspective is skewed, being a Slashdot reader you have heard a lot about this issue. You also probably have some understanding of this issue and the reasons why a truly free and open standard is beneficial to users and non-monopolist developers.

The average person (politician or government bureaucrat or corporate purchasing agent) has no understanding of what open standards are or why they are beneficial. Simply naming something Open Office XML is enough to pass muster with most people who have a vague notion that "open standard" is somehow vaguely associated with "good." Making ODF the de facto standard in such an environment is by no means a done deal. For an example of how this sort of thing works, look at MS's influence in various government purchasing decisions for office software. Or, look at the Library of Congress, who MS just paid to standardize on using the proprietary standard "silverlight" instead of the open standard AJAX. They don't know or care about the difference, especially in the face of a fairly small donation from MS. They are now locked into an MS proprietary format and MS only servers for the future unless they want to spend a large sum trying to break free. And what will happen if 5 years down the road MS drops some browsers or OS's or combinations from their supported list (as they have done with IE and Active X for the Mac, or with their proprietary macros on the Mac version of MS Office)?

Just because most people on Slashdot know that OOXML is not a real open standard does not mean the average decision maker does, or if they do, if they care about what happens down the road compared to the public perception of what will happen down the road.

Re:irrelevant?

[Benanov]

"OOXML types (docx, xlsx, pptx) are the default file types in Office 2007, which has been out now for over a year."

That's not 'standard' OOXML--that's Office 2007's approximation to what was submitted to ECMA, and even it doesn't really comply with what was submitted. (BIFF is alive and well; VML is not "deprecated" because you can have it created in brand new documents, etc.)

It is a partial implementation and not an implementation of what was submitted, let alone what the standard is now (because that's kinda impossible at the moment as it hasn't settled.)

Re:irrelevant?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Simply naming something Open Office XML is enough to pass muster with most people who have a vague notion that "open standard" is somehow vaguely associated with "good." It's actually Office Open XML. The fact that you confused the name just goes to prove your point about exactly why they named it "open", and even so close to the name "OpenOffice".

Re:irrelevant?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Or, look at the Library of Congress, who MS just paid to standardize on using the proprietary standard "silverlight" instead of the open standard AJAX. They don't know or care about the difference, especially in the face of a fairly small donation from MS. They are now locked into an MS proprietary format and MS only servers for the future unless they want to spend a large sum trying to break free.


The way I remember that story reading, they were paid to standardize on using Silverlight instead of Flash for their UI, which is also a proprietary standard. AJAX was never even in the picture.

Re:irrelevant?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The way I remember that story reading, they were paid to standardize on using Silverlight instead of Flash for their UI, which is also a proprietary standard. AJAX was never even in the picture.

You are incorrect. They currently use a combination of AJAX and Flash depending upon the resource. While Flash is proprietary, it has been making strides towards becoming more open, with most of the specification now public. Flash is not owned by a company with a monopoly to leverage and so the risk of monopolistic lock in is much less. Flash also supports interfaces for the disabled, which Silverlight does not yet. Finally, Silverlight only supports Windows as a server, while Flash supports Linux as well; so even ignoring the AJAX in use, Silverlight is a significant step towards both more proprietary and more potential for abusive lock-in.

Re:irrelevant?

[LinuxDon]

Quote: "Simply naming something Open Office XML"

They even got you confused. It's "Office Open XML" from Microsoft.

Re:irrelevant?

[Mongoose Disciple]

You are incorrect.

That's debateable. I'll elaborate.

They currently use a combination of AJAX and Flash depending upon the resource.

If a resource didn't make sense to present with Flash, it wouldn't make sense to present with Silverlight either. Someone developing a Microsoft solutions version of the site would almost certainly use AJAX in the exact same places.

In any case, it's not like the LoC was talking about ripping out their Flash and replacing it with an all-AJAX solution, so it's your choice of disingenuous or wrong to say that Silverlight beat out AJAX there.

While Flash is proprietary, it has been making strides towards becoming more open, with most of the specification now public.

Silverlight runs in any browser on any OS. It could be fairly said that this is a great stride towards openness from Microsoft.

Flash is not owned by a company with a monopoly to leverage and so the risk of monopolistic lock in is much less.

Right, Adobe isn't Microsoft. We knew that.

Flash also supports interfaces for the disabled, which Silverlight does not yet.

I don't have sources to cite, but my understanding from people who have worked with both is that this is one of the very few areas where Silverlight blows Flash clean out of the water.

Finally, Silverlight only supports Windows as a server, while Flash supports Linux as well; so even ignoring the AJAX in use, Silverlight is a significant step towards both more proprietary and more potential for abusive lock-in.

Eh. I can't agree with "significant" there. We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.

Re:irrelevant?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

That's debateable. I'll elaborate. If a resource didn't make sense to present with Flash, it wouldn't make sense to present with Silverlight either. Someone developing a Microsoft solutions version of the site would almost certainly use AJAX in the exact same places.

This is not true. Go take a look at the online resources at the Library of Congress. Many of the resources presented are just fine presented using AJAX technologies. Others use Flash needlessly. Obviously it all depends upon which contractor they used at the time. In any case, the LoC is now replacing all resources with a "Silverlight Kiosk" as they are calling it, meaning all of the resources, even ones that have no need for video are being replaced.

In any case, it's not like the LoC was talking about ripping out their Flash and replacing it with an all-AJAX solution, so it's your choice of disingenuous or wrong to say that Silverlight beat out AJAX there.

No they weren't yet if they were doing an upgrade that would certainly be an option, as other national archives have done just that, for example look at Australia. In any case, as I already stated they are ripping out functioning AJAX and replacing it with Silverlight.

Silverlight runs in any browser on any OS. It could be fairly said that this is a great stride towards openness from Microsoft.

That has nothing to do with openness. Open is the degree which the protocols and code can be viewed and reproduced. Supporting clients on other browsers or OS's is not openess at all, it is just cross-platform support. Unlike openness it provides no assurance that platforms will be supported in future (usually just after MS becomes dominant in a given market).

Right, Adobe isn't Microsoft. We knew that.

There is a big difference that you attempt to trivialize by summing it up as names. Choosing a solution from a vendor who has no leverage to force you to do things in the future is very different from choosing a vendor who does have leverage to force you to do things. Choosing a vendor who has repeatedly been convicted of criminal offences for doing just that, versus a company that has no way to break antitrust laws even if they wanted to is a world of difference.

I don't have sources to cite, but my understanding from people who have worked with both is that this is one of the very few areas where Silverlight blows Flash clean out of the water.

Adobe Flash has long been certified to create, by default, section 508 compliant sites. While it may be possible to do the same with Silverlight, you have to avoid using many of the features at the very least since their zoom support in the last one I looked at had no way to hook into and JAWs or other program for the blind. The last federal acquisitions guidelines published did not list any version of Silverlight as an option, which theoretically means the Library of Congress project unless created very carefully may well violate section 508 acquisition rules.

Eh. I can't agree with "significant" there. We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.

In the last few months Adobe has published the specifications for a large portion of their Flash tool chain under the name "Adobe Air" including even a fully open source HTML rendering engine (WebKit) in use by many other projects. Furthermore, while Adobe supports their Flash servers on Windows and Linux (giving customers choice and allowing competitive bids from vendors) nothing is now stopping any other vendor from offering it on any platform. Silverlight means you buy Microsoft server at whatever they feel like charging since you have no option for any other server vendor. You don't see that as a significant step backwards? I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise, unless perhaps they were an astroturfer being paid to have a certain opinion.

Re:irrelevant?

[quux4]

Silverlight runs in any browser on any OS. It could be fairly said that this is a great stride towards openness from Microsoft.

That has nothing to do with openness. Open is the degree which the protocols and code can be viewed and reproduced. Supporting clients on other browsers or OS's is not openess at all, it is just cross-platform support. Unlike openness it provides no assurance that platforms will be supported in future (usually just after MS becomes dominant in a given market).

What is MoonLight, Alex?

Re:irrelevant?

[Mongoose Disciple]

This is not true. Go take a look at the online resources at the Library of Congress. Many of the resources presented are just fine presented using AJAX technologies. Others use Flash needlessly. Obviously it all depends upon which contractor they used at the time. In any case, the LoC is now replacing all resources with a "Silverlight Kiosk" as they are calling it, meaning all of the resources, even ones that have no need for video are being replaced.


Have you implemented that kind of setup/kiosk before with Flash before? I have.

Have you implemented that kind of UI with Microsoft technologies before? I have.

Have you tried to do it with Silverlight? Do you have any real sense of the boundaries of the technology and what you would or wouldn't do with it? Or real sense of the kinds of libraries and fancy AJAX widgets MS has out there, should they take an "if it's not MS, it's crap!" approach to setting up the kiosk?

You could do the entire thing in Silverlight come hell or high water, just like you CAN walk cross-country and get the best gas mileage, but basically no one serious actually would.

No, you've made up your mind and god help any kind of facts or informed opinion should they get in the way.


You don't see that as a significant step backwards? I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise, unless perhaps they were an astroturfer being paid to have a certain opinion.


First... no. I'm a developer, and I'm a consultant. I work with whatever technology does the job best for my clients. Sometimes that's free stuff, and sometimes that's closed stuff like Flash or .NET. In the last six months alone it's been both. My opinion is much more likely to be based in objective pros and cons, and reality in general, than someone for whom Microsoft is always the devil.

For many many many software projects, the price of the hardware it runs on is so insignificant as to be a rounding error. A good developer's time for a day costs more than a server, and it's usually going to take a lot more than one good developer and a lot more than a day.

Second... who would seriously hire anyone to astroturf on Slashdot of all places? I can't imagine a bigger waste of money. Occam's Razor should clean that tinfoil hat brigade idea right up, and if it doesn't, you've got bigger problems. If that seems inflammatory to say, see parent post.

So this article is saying that...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Some software freedom people don't think Microsoft is going far enough with guarantees of openness and freedom.

How was this news, again?

Re:So this article is saying that...

[pembo13]

Because apparently people who are lawyers sat down with the information and came to a consensus on its legal meaning.

Re:So this article is saying that...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Right. Some free software lawyers came to a consensus on its legal meaning, happening to agree that a group they (perhaps correctly) see as the enemy isn't doing enough for them.

In other news, a dozen Catholic bishops came to a consensus that Catholicism is the one true faith and that promises made by other religions might not be as good.

Re:So this article is saying that...

[initdeep]

you get modded troll for the truth

only at slashdot.

now all of the good slashdot sheeple need to take their little pills.....

c'mon.
No balking.

Re:So this article is saying that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You get modded troll for a condescending or insulting tone in your post, independent of the content. If you were really just trying to make a point you'd have expressed it in a civil manner instead of trying to make the reader angry.

'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t.

[sm62704]

He actually said "bullsnot"? Since when is "snot" a dirty word? Come to think if it, I don't think I've ever heard the word "snot" on TV so maybe it is.

And not only did he misspell "udder", a bull's nose isn't its udder. Bulls don't even have udders! That would be as useless as tits on a bull!

Look, guys, this is an adult forum. People post pictures of goatse and tubgirl. I have journals about drunken whores here, for fuck's sake! If you can't say a word, just don't say it rather than using asterisks. It's a spade, damn it, not a "pointy shovel".

When someone says "That snot funny!" I laugh my ass off.

-mcgrew

Re:'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+utter

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+udder

Re:'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t.

[sm62704]

*WOOSH!*

Re:'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t.

[TheThiefMaster]

The coward has a point, "utter" is a real word, meaning "say" as a verb or "complete/total/upper limit of" as an adjective.

"Complete and utter" is often used as a single adjective meaning "absolute".

Re:'Complete, utter, unadulterated bulls**t.

[TheThiefMaster]

You can't get out of it that easily, if you were joking you would have been modded "Funny" not "3, Insightful".

Moderation hint: ---> I AM JOKING. ---

The 'legal analysis' is flawed

[Swift Kick]

I suggest you all read this post by Gray Knowlton, the group product manager for MS Office, where he clarifies some of the more incendiary statements by the SFLC.

He make some pretty reasonable arguments, and calls the blatant bias against MS, when IBM and sun get a free pass even though their own version of the OSP has the same restrictions as MS. Very interesting to see the kettle lashing back at pot.

Re:The 'legal analysis' is flawed

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

He make some pretty reasonable arguments, and calls the blatant bias against MS, when IBM and sun get a free pass even though their own version of the OSP has the same restrictions as MS.

I'd actually argue that it is reasonable to be biased against MS in this regard by anyone who has viewed their past conduct in this area. A whole lot of MS partners who implemented technologies with Microsoft have since been driven out of business by Microsoft. Further, Microsoft has a history of breaking both contract and criminal law and then tying up the courts with legal maneuvers until the issue is moot. Just look at the number of settlement MS has paid out, knowing that they have made more money than that by breaking a contract or law.

Some of the points made by Mr. Knowlton completely ignore the context of the situation. He claims that other companies have not provided any better promises with regard to ODF. This, for example, ignores that no one company is the sole originator or implementor of ODF and that none of the developers implementing it are monopolists who can leverage that monopoly to undermine the free market. If Sun deviated from open standards in a future version of ODF, nothing stops their customers from migrating to another solution from another vendor. If MS deviates from open standards in a future version of OOXML, they will become a de facto closed standard just as .doc is now since they do have undue influence on the office software and desktop OS markets. Anyone who forks OOXML in future (and by forks I mean uses a version that is not what MS is using, even if MS encumbers their version with patents or DRM or anything else) will be trying to compete fairly against a monopolist which is a losing proposition economically.

I'd say the majority of his arguments fall into the same category of fallacy as people here who argue that because Apple bundles Safari with OS X, MS should be able to bundle IE with Windows. It completely ignores that MS's OS constitutes a monopolized market, while Apple's OS X does not. Many people are ignorant on this topic and still others willfully ignore the difference in order to try to make a more persuasive (but flawed) assertion. Basically, the logical flaw being presented by Mr. knowlton is equivocation where someone might argue that everyone should be free to travel anywhere in the US they want, intentionally ignoring the fact that one person is a criminal on parole with a history of being a flight risk, whereas the other people to whom that person is being compared are not convicted criminals and have no reason to flee the courts.

Re:The 'legal analysis' is flawed

[pavera]

Funny thing is, he links to the IBM ISP saying that it is exactly the same as the OSP... However, if you follow that link and read the IBM doc, it says nothing about being able to revoke the promise for future versions of the same spec the way the OSP specifically states.

Further, he links to the SUN agreement saying that it is the same as the MS one in regards to implementations, SUN explicitly gives you the right to implement ODF 1.0 *AND ANY FUTURE VERSION* of ODF. This 100% contradicts what he says in his article (he says sun and IBM also have provisions that limit the applicability of the promise to a single version or set of versions of the specs in question). He is either willfully misrepresenting or he is ignorant.

Re:The 'legal analysis' is flawed

[quux4]

Funny thing is, he links to the IBM ISP saying that it is exactly the same as the OSP... However, if you follow that link and read the IBM doc, it says nothing about being able to revoke the promise for future versions of the same spec the way the OSP specifically states.

IBM's Interoperability Specifications Pledge (ISP) carefully lists the version of each thing it protects ... and you are right, says nothing at all about future or prior versions. So there can be no implied promised about anything other than the versions listed. IBM can 'revoke' (which isn't the proper word, really) future ISP coverage of a spec by simply not listing the later version on that page.

"It'll be fixed in the next version!"

[Coop]

Remember in their Windows marketing, when confronted with egregious bugs, security holes, and feature deficiencies, MS would always promise that the *next* version would be everything we could possibly imagine. They did this for version after version of inferior product. When I read "Microsoft responded to these assertions stating that they've already taken steps to answer these concerns" I get deja vu. Sorry, MS, after causing the OOXML problem in the first place your credibility in claiming to be "taking steps" comes across more as duplicity than as a solution, or even as a genuine concern that a solution be found.

Microsoft is insincere. But that's not news.

[Bruce Perens]

SFLC probably doesn't like any patent covenants, even Sun's and IBM's, regarding GPL software. But unlike Microsoft, Sun and IBM have themselves participated in the development of GPL code implementing the standards those covenants were meant to cover, and thus they are also covered by the GPL's language regarding patents.

Microsoft, in contrast, hasn't bound itself to the GPL during the development of any existing OOXML implementation. Microsoft has also behaved in a very hostile manner, for example spreading FUD about their patents (we still don't have the list) covering our existing software. So, we don't have much reason to read their agreements in a favorable light.

Bruce

Re:Microsoft is insincere. But that's not news.

[Froqen]

That doesn't help you if you aren't tying yourself to the GPL, so if I want to release a version under the BSD I'm just as potentially SOL with the IBM or Sun patent pledges as the Microsoft one.

Re:Microsoft is insincere. But that's not news.

[Bruce Perens]

There are also the OASIS royalty-free rules for the ODF committee. IBM and Sun are contributors, and they are bound by those rules.

There is also the matter of your own protection from patent aggressors. You might think about using LGPL3 just for the patent language. It allows commercial derivatives as BSD does. Or you could use some license with termination on patent suit, like the Mozilla ones. Look at the way the JMRI developer got sued for patent infringement by a manufacturer who actually embeds JMRI in his product. IMO that was a very chilling event for anyone who doesn't have patent protection in their license.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:Microsoft is insincere. But that's not news.

[Wraith, The]

Such rules do not exist just for OASIS.

Office open XML is an Ecma International standard.

Ecma standards are ALL copyright free.

As for patents the Ecma members are required to give RAND licensing on every standard they participate in the TC (similar to OASIS) and in addition to that for each standard they vote to approve in Ecma. So unless Microsoft starts objecting to 'their own' standard in Ecma, the Ecma rules guarantee that the Microsoft is required to continue to give RAND patent licensing for future ecma approved versions as well.

So rules for contributors are valid for Ecma standards as well as for OASIS standards. In Ecma however additional rules exist for 'approval' voters to release patents on approved astandards as well IBM was the only NO voter when Office Open XML was approved.

Re:Talking about pledges...

[Creepy Crawler]

In many jurisdictions, it falls under contract law.

So, yes the GPL is a license, but there's a chance the judge wont see it that way.

For those of us without lawyers on retainer...

[Qubit]

Let's sum up what's happened so far:

1. Microsoft publishes its "Open Specification Promise" -- a document which at first glance appears to give independent developers the freedom to implement OOXML without worrying about infringing on Microsoft's patents. (This document was undoubtedly drafted and/or reviewed by Microsoft's legal department)
   
2. The Software Freedom Law Center -- an organization staffed with lawyers very knowledgeable about IP law as it relates to software licensing -- publishes a paper stating that developers should not rely on Microsoft's OSP as patent indemnification as "[the OSP] provides no assurance to GPL developers" and "[it] is unsafe to rely upon the OSP for any free software implementation".
   
3. Gray Knowlton, a product manager for Microsoft Office, writes a rebuttal to the SFLC's paper on his blog.
   

Now Knowlton may have some good points in his rebuttal, but AFAIK he's not a lawyer. Until some Microsoft lawyer (or some other lawyer who is versed in software licensing and patent law) wants to step up and rebut the SFLC, I'm going to be inclined to believe that the OSP is not strong enough to protect me from lawsuits.

Microsoft has an absolutely abysmal record when it comes to interoperability and free and open access to their file formats. "Embrace-Extend-Extinguish" is their watchword. In March of 2005 I wrote to Microsoft's legal department and the Free Software Foundation, asking if the licensing of the Office 2003 XML Schemas (the ancestor of OOXML) were compatible with the GPL. Microsoft didn't even give me the courtesy of a reply. So even if, as Knowlton claims, "[Office] Open XML's terms are the same or more liberal than rival document standard OpenDocument," if there's any doubt in my mind as to whether I am legally protected when working with the OOXML format, why should I believe that Microsoft will act in good faith in the future when it never has in the past?

Re:Talking about pledges...

[Shimmer]

The GPL is a license, not a contract.

CPHack

[Bruce Perens]

IMO the FSF and Moglen simply chose not to be involved with CPHack.

If this happened to a program they were actually wanted to be seen with, they would at least have made an amicus brief.

Bruce

Re:M$ is M$, what did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I stopped reading after the fourth or fifth dollar sign.

You realize that whatever it is you're saying, you still sound like a petty 12-year old, right? I hope you do.

Disingenuous

[quux4]

SFLC is concerned about (the first three lines of italics are SFLC's quotes from the OSP):

New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.

Which is true of any contract. It covers what it covers; doesn't cover the things it doesn't cover. So, if I were to write something and give it away under GPL, then tomorrow add code to it, call it a new version, and not put it under GPL, but rather some other and terrible license ... that's fine too. Is it even possible to write a contract which would cover all future work you may or may not ever do?

The OSP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specification(s).

Err ... yeah. As before, the contract covers what it covers. Here it is simply going out of its way to say that it does not cover things which ... it doesn't cover. I guess that one was put in there by Microsoft's Department of Redundancy Department. But it basically means that your code which implements the spec is covered under OSP; your code which does other things is not. "Work that you do" is not synomous with "whole programs that you write" - it can be work that you do within a program you write. SFLC seems to have gone out of their way to twist the meaning, here.

Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).

This is MS saying they can't give any binding opinion about the legal interpretation of contract written by other entities, in who knows how many jursidictions. I'm resisting the temptation to be sarcastic about SFLC lawyers saying that's somehow bad, or dumb, or ... I honestly am not sure what SFLC was trying to imply, there. Anyway - if someone asked you to declare the exact interpretation everyone in the world would give of GPL as it intersects some other license, how would you answer? Meanwhile note the way SFLC cherrypicked even this - their quote comes six paragraphs in the FAQ after MS explicitly states that "It is intended to enable open source implementations ..." and just below the SFLC's quote is another question and answer:

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes.

So here's MS saying that they intend for the OSP to be GPL compatible, but they cannot be 100% sure, because, after all ... interpretations differ.

I would be very curious what would be the exact minimum corrections SFLC would like MS to make, in order to rectify these concerns they say they have. Because I just don't see any problem here.

Suitability?

[RAMMS EIN]

``The advice would seem to throw more doubt on OOXML's suitability as an international document standard.''

That suggests there is such suitability, or at least doubt. I haven't looked closely, but from what I've heard, it seems that:

1. OOXML is horrible
2. OOXML allows Microsoft to simply embed their existing binary formats in a so-called XML file
3. This does nothing to improve interoperability and implementability
4. We already have ODF as an approved and implemented (by multiple vendors) standard
5. OOXML seems to be a "me too" from Microsoft, afraid to be passed up when organizations start to mandate interoperable standards
6. The name "OOXML" causes a lot of confusion with OpenOffice.org. I can't help but think this is deliberate.
7. Microsoft tries very hard to convince the world that, this time, they are not screwing us all, and that they will not assert any intellectual property claims against other implementations of OOXML
8. Actually reading Microsofts promises in this regard reveals that they only apply to _parts_ of the standard, particularly omitting some parts that they are likely to use (see point 2).
9. The only reason OOXML is even close to being accepted by ISO is that Microsoft stuffed the committee.

All in all, I can't avoid the impression that the only reason OOXML is still taken seriously is that some people are seriously wrong-headed. It obviously isn't a good idea, and we should stop wasting our time on it. But if enough people keep making noise about it, it seems just like there is still doubt about that.

Re:Suitability?

[MightyMartian]

I just gotta ask, do you get paid by Redmond to be a shill? Or are you one of their dumb-ass marketing employees?

But just to play with a pathetic mouthpiece like you, if it's so damned wonderful, why did Microsoft feel the need to try to buy the ISO vote?

Re:Suitability?

[MightyMartian]

When OOXML does not have references to older proprietary Office formats, let us know. Until then go crawl back to Redmond. It's pretty clear that's where you're coming from.

The bias against Microsoft is their own doing.

[argent]

Whether this is due to a bias against Microsoft, or not, is beside the point. It's a realistic bias, given their history of dirty tricks. Gray is saying that he doesn't need to show that the leopard has changed his shorts. My response to his article hasn't shown up yet, so I'll repost it here...

"As far as recounting the entire history of Microsoft legal activity, again, it's not really something that is helpful."

If you want to convince people that the leopard has changed his shorts, you have to show people what the shorts look like on the leopard. Microsoft has a higher barrier to acceptance than IBM or Sun because Microsoft has a history of behaving worse than IBM and Sun. To overcome that barrier, Microsoft may have to make stronger commitments, show conclusively that they are stronger, and show that they can stand behind them. This may be unfair to you, personally, and to the people you're working with, but you can't just pretend the leopard isn't in the room.

Re:The bias against Microsoft is their own doing.

[starfishsystems]

Leopard ... spots. Not shorts. Leopards don't typically wear shorts.

Apart from that, your spots -- I mean points -- are entirely valid. In my books, Microsoft has permanently extinguished its right to be given the benefit of the doubt. The degree of bad behavior required to do that is impressive.

Re:The bias against Microsoft is their own doing.

[argent]

Leopard ... spots. Not shorts. Leopards don't typically wear shorts.

I have no idea who Rudyard Kipling is, either!

Re:The bias against Microsoft is their own doing.

[starfishsystems]

Of course, "How the Leopard Got His Shorts" by Rudyard Kipling.

I reckon any culture that figures out how to to put gin and tonic together has done the world a great favor.

I think the first point is the important one

[blueZ3]

While there is overreaction and FUD on the part of ./ers, you can understand why, given Microsoft's past history.

To me, the key is that Microsoft's license explicitly goes out of its way to say that future versions of the spec aren't covered. Given the embrace-extend-extinguish history of Microsoft, that's a red flag. They could have 1) said nothing about future versions, which if your reading of this is correct was unnecessary because the contract only covers what it says it does, or 2) explicitly said "this and all future versions" of the spec. Why a specification is covered by a patent is another whole can of worms.

My suggestion for a fix, probably too clear for legalese (IANAL): Microsoft will not sue you over your implementation of this specification. Period, full stop.

Re:I think the first point is the important one

[quux4]

While there is overreaction and FUD on the part of ./ers, you can understand why, given Microsoft's past history.

I sure hope that the lawyers at SFLC (whom I quoted in the post you replied to) feel that the standard for "legal analysis" they publish on the SFLC website should be a few notches above your average /. FUD post!

Maybe...but ISO should know better.

[Joce640k]

ISO is a technical standards body and should be able to see the issues, which are:

a) Nobody is using it (including Microsoft!)

b) Nobody will ever use it (including Microsoft!) - and this was a deliberate part of the design.

c) Nobody wants it in its current form (except Microsoft!). A non-implementable standard is worse than no standard at all.

Besides, it's so obvious that Microsoft is playing ISO as a bunch of fools that if they want to keep any credibility they should kick it out without so much as a vote.

A huge industry-wide cheer would go up if they did this (and this alone should indicate something...)

Soft Bribery

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry for posting AC but you'll soon see why.

I want to tell you Slashdot people something about how this kind of thing works. I don't really know the name for it, but I call it "soft bribery". You might also call it "economic alignment" or whatever. Here's what happens.

A large, rich stakeholder wants a particular outcome - in this case, MS wants OOXML to be ratified. They have some adversaries - respected leaders of the OSS movement or ODF foundation, in this case. Note that there are always certain people with disproportionate voices - these people are really hurting them. How can they turn them around?

They can't outright bribe them. That's illegal and probably wouldn't work anyway - people would feel insulted. So what they need to do is ensure that the "thought leader"'s economic interest is aligned with their own.

We see this happen all the time - a previous strong advocate against something, in this case pro ODF and against OOXML, will suddenly get more concilatory. See Durusau's change of tone for an example. Now I don't know him, but I'm pretty sure here's what happened.

He would be in constant contact with the OOXML team in MS just as a matter of course. One day, though, they'll tell him to expect a call from a VP or higher - big guns. He's excited to be able to reach higher up in the company. Finally, they're taking him seriously. He might be talking to a billionaire!

He'll get the call. "Wow, we're really impressed with your work on this. My team is always telling me what a smart, together guy you are", says the VP or Partner or whatever. "I just wanted to tell you that we really appreciate the work you're doing and we can learn a lot from you. Say, when this is all over, if OOXML finally gets accepted - we'd love to get you in for some interoperability training and consulting, our staff could really use your insight. We pay pretty well, $500 an hour, and we estimate the contract would last for a year fulltime, but we're flexible with your current work - we just need you on call. What do you think?"

There you go. That's it. A year's worth at $500/hr is close enough to a million bucks, the guy's got a mortgage, game over. Of course MS wants it kept quiet or the deal's off - that's their "standard business practise", and the contract has an NDA clause.

Game over. I'm sure this is what happened to Durusau. I'm pretty sure it's what happened to Miguel. Unless you're independently wealthy, not many people can say no to a few hundred thousand in "consulting". Needless to say, he'll never step foot in any Microsoft building. Hell, maybe it's a lot less than a million - it was for someone I know.

I am going to be very vague here - sorry if you think I lose credibility, but I don't want to burn my friend. He was the CEO/CTO (same guy) at a small systems integrator in the educational sector "somewhere in Asia". A largish school deal was in the works, his company advised decision makers in favour of linux. A respected company, had a lot of sway with the local suits, it was looking like going their way. One day he gets a call to the cell phone - wow, one of the big guns!

"We really like the work you're doing. Say, it looks like this deal isn't going to go our way - but if it does, we'll need a partner to help us interoperate with the existing infrastructure - you installed a lot of it, so you're first in line and we'd like to book you in advance just to make sure we can get you. What are your rates? Well, we'd like to make sure we have you for at least six months and we actually pay a set rate in this area of $$$. Is that OK? We'll fax over our proposed contract right now, we're pretty eager to go ahead with this, so just to lock in our booking we'll deposit the first 25% of the contract as soon as you fax it back to us, is that good with you? Refundable if we don't get the deal of course. Commercial in confidence, naturally. Let us know ASAP, and good luck with the deal!"

The contract was over triple what the linux deal would have earned. He h

Re:M$ is M$, what did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmm, yes