No, the TiVoization clause was a long time coming. It's still something many people don't agree with, such as Linus Torvolds, but the fact is that we well thought out. I was referring to the clause added at the last minute to try and thwart the patent licensing deals. That was not well thought out, and was reactionary.
Because the licenses contain no terms that restrict the end-user use of the software. Therefore, even if read literally, the license doesn't put any restrictions on end-user use. All the terms are distribution related. So what if using the software agrees to the terms, if you're not distributing it, the terms won't apply.
What does that have to do with the two licenses Microsoft submitted to the OSI (MS-PL and MS-CL)? You know, the ones that parent said wouldn't e approved because they contained Windows requirements?
I think it's pretty obvious. Microsoft wrote their own licenses because they don't want to be at the mercy of the FSF, and their willingness to alter license terms to suit their political agendas. This is the same reason Apple, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, and many others have their own licenses as well.
Considering that *ALL* the terms of the license are distribution terms, it's clear that the term "use" is in reference to distribution. Neither the Microsoft Permissive License or the Community license put any restrictions on the use of the software as a user.
it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows
Please tell me where the word "Windows" even appears in this license. I don't see it. Maybe you should actually read them before you make such comments.
Somehow I think you would refuse to comment on my arguments whether I am anonymous or not. That's your choice of course, but quite disingenuous to use anonyminity as an excuse to dodge difficult questions that challenge your position. Rob Weir does the same thing, only approving comments on his blog that he agrees with to give the imprssion of unanimous agreement on his position.
So that's really how Sun and it's employees choose to operate? Nice.
Analysis by independent counsel raised no such issue
*sigh*. Sadly, this is yet another case of the FSF, in retrospect, applying what it wishes the GPL says... rather than what it actually says. A good example of this is the FSF's assertions regarding dynamic linking and the GPL. They have this tendancy to want to re-interpret the GPL to match their current line of thinking in ways that do not stand up to a literal reading of the document.
In this case, the FSF sees no conflict between the FSF's stance on IP lawsuits and Sun's covenant. However, the GPL is quite specific in section 6 where it says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.", and the act of attaching a reciprocal license to the patent covent imposes such. The FSF, however, seems willing to overlook this because the patent covenant's is in line with their political philosophy. The problem, of course, is that it's at odds with the actual verbiage of the GPL.
So pardon me if I don't believe everything Eben or the FSF says regarding their interpretation of the GPL. If we took their interpretation, there would be a *LOT* of people infringing due to dynamic linking, among other issues. Section 6 is very clear in outlining that additional restrictions cannot be imposed on a GPL covered work.
Also, i've noticed a tendancy of Sun in particular to want to use "framing" as an excuse to cover up inconvenient wording. Neither I, nor a judge IME would give 2 shakes about how you "framed" it outside of the actual terms of the grant, they would care about the words. I am not twisthing any interpretation, i'm taking it's literal meaning. You qualify coverage for any given version (other than version 1.0) as being a condition of Sun participating. That is a literal reading of the prose.
Claiming that a later version will retain all the same coverage as earlier versions, regardless of Sun's participation is akin to claiming that if you relicense a work under a different license, then the old license still applies to parts of the new work that haven't changed. It doesn't.
Also, whether or not Sun intends to continue to participate in the OD TC is irrelevent. The mere possibility that if Sun doesn't participate, then all IP grants are out the window for future versions is enough to question the wording of the grant. I will grant you that term I used, "holding hostage", is alarmist... but the fact is, the wording gives Sun the power to do just that if they wanted to (not that I'm saying they would, just that it gives them the power to do so).
If I might say so, sir. You seem more than willing to nitpick every little license detail in OOXML, but are unwilling to consider that such problems might exist in your own. There's a word for that.
By the way, I notice that you don't seem to object to Eben's use of the term "Essential claims" in his analysis and how he applies it to ODF, unlike how you object to the use of the term in regards to OOXML.
I also note that you conveniently ignore another little "gotcha" in regards to the GPL and derivitive works. Specifically, if I implement an application based on ODF, but I modify the format for my own purposes, there is nothing in the covenant which protects that derived implementation. You can easily argue that this implementation is neither ODF 1.0 or a subsequent version of it, and therefore not covered. That's another clear incompatibility with the GPL, which requires derived works to be covered... regardless of whether or not they follow the specification.
In other words, your grant only protects full or partial implementations of the format, not derived versions of it. Let me give an example. Let's say I take OpenOffice source code, then change all the element names of the format to whatever I want. This is legally allowed under the LGPL, so long as I publish my source when I distribute it. However, i've lost the patent covenant protection by doing so, because it's no longe
Point of clarification, the first paragraph should be read in context of the claims below it. When I said "isn't bound to honor" i meant in subsequent versions.
That's nice, but you fail to mention that your own patent covenant has some loopholes and potholes as well. For instance, Sun only grants patent protection while they are participating in OASIS. Should Sun ever drop out, Sun isn't bound to honor the covenant. Further, the reciprocity requirements of the agreement are incompatible with the GPL (at least version 2, version 3 has some litigation clauses that may be substantially similar to this, and if so would not make the reciprocity requirements an addition restriction).
Your blog entry you pointed to claims that the grant doesn't end if sun doesn't participate, but that is highly misleading. No, the coverage doesn't end on versions sun previously participated in, but coverage isn't granted to any new versions that Sun doesn't participate in. The text of the grant clearly says:
"...or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation...".
By explicitly calling out ODF version 1.0 as being granted irrevocably, and then saying "or any other version that sun participates in", you are clearly NOT granting coverage if Sun doesn't participate in any given version. In other words, if Sun doesn't participate in version 1.3, then version 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 will have coverage, but anyone implementing version 1.3 would be doing so at their own risk, since Sun's patent grant wouldn't extend to that version or beyond, despite having coverage in earlier versions.
Effectively, this holds ODF hostage. Sun can threaten to stop participating at any time if they don't get their way, and that will effectively end ODF, since without the patent covenant, it would be too risky to implement.
That's funny. In my own anectdotal experience, on the 15 flights i've taken in the last 3 months, every single time i've seen someone open up a (non-mac) laptop, they've had Office 2007 running. Probably 25 different people, randomly encountered. The ribbon bar is very noticable, even if you're just glancing in someones direction.
Now, maybe it's just that people that regularly fly on business trips have extra money lying around to upgrade, but it kind of blows your other theories. Especially since a) it's a free upgrade for anyone on software assurance, and b) it's not more difficult ot use, and c) i don't know of anyone that's needed to be retrained to use it. In fact, in my experience they find it easier to use than Office 2003.
And, before you jump to the conclusion that it was written by a shill, you should note that the authors are members of OASIS and one of them writes for Groklaw.
Actually, Linux is the boot OS, and service console. The VMWare Kernel appears to be some kind of driver that loads after the Linux OS loads.
This looks to me like the same situation as Windows 95, it boots up with DOS then loads a kernel that takes over much of the functionality, or Netware that also loads boots with DOS then loads the kernel.
The problem I have is that it appears that the original Linux boot OS is still the one that's at the root of everything, though the VMWare virtual machines run under the vmkernel which runs on the Linux OS.
I thought so too, but then you keep implying that if ever a version is released that Sun doesn't participate in, then Sun will retroactively revoke (which is can't) its pledge for code used to implement all previous version.
I implied no such thing.
The part you keep getting confused about is the use of the word "version". A subsequent version isn't "all the code from the previous version, plus my new stuff". Each version is an independant entity, licensed independantly, regardless of whether some of that code was licensed under a previous version.
Each release has it's own "copy" of the license. That's how some projects can change their license entirely. No, you can't change the previous versions license retroactively, a new version has a new license, even if the license is the same as the old version, it's a seperate implementation, and the licenses only apply to that release. The GPL makes this a little confusing because they require that works based upon a particular version retain the same license as the work it was derived from, but that doesn't change the fact that the new release is a seperate instance, just with the same license.
Because of this, when you release your derived version of OpenOffice, with your own version of ODF, Sun's pledge won't apply to you, even for the parts that were covered under the work you derived from, because Sun did not participate in that versions development.
No, it doesn't remove the patent pledge from the 1.2 implemenation, but it does from the 1.3 implementation. The point being that Sun explicitly states version numbers of the documents that the pledge applies to, and uses the word "version".
Now, if 1.3 happens to be an extension to 1.2 or earlier, and it can be shown that the 1.3 is physically seperate from the 1.2 implementation that would be one thing, but you can't just say that the 1.2 functionality is still covered in a new version. Further, the reciprocity requirements mentioned are also GPL killers, since they add additional restrictions.
How about we take another example. Suppose someone decides to fork the specification and create their own version, forked from GPL'd code that deals with the "official" version. Sun's patent pledge doesn't cover them because they did not participate in the development of the forked version. That's a clear GPL no-no, which requires that any patents be licensed to anyone, and for those rights to be transferrable to derived works.
What you're doing is cherry picking individual words out of the entire statement and trying to assign them as you would like them to be assigned, ignoring the meaning of the sentance as a whole.
Let's break it down.
(1) Sun Irrevocably covenants that (2) Subject to the reciprocity requirements described below (3) it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format v1.0 Specification (4) or of any subsquent version thereof in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation
What this is clearly saying is that the 1.0 version is fixed in stone. It cannot be revoked (1), unless you don't reciprocate, in which case it can be revoked (2).
This sentance alone would indicate that only version 1.0 is covered. So version 1.1 or greater would not be covered by the pledge. Thus, they added the section (4) "or of any subsequent version thereof", but that is modified by the "in which development Sun participates". Meaning that if Sun doesn't participate, then the patent grant doesn't apply to that version. Any of it. By forcing the patent license to be tied to versions, they made certain that the patent grant applies to versions.
The pledge is applied to a version of the specification. if Sun doesn't participate in that version, the patent pledge will not apply. That's pretty easy to read.
You are arguing semantics. Let's put this in a practical example.
Suppose Sun drops out of OASIS after version 1.2. Oasis goes on to create version 1.3 of ODF, which Sun does not particiapte in. Sun's patent pledge no longer covers 1.3 in any way, not even for patents that were present in 1.2, 1.1, and 1.0. In other words, they no longer grant those patents that were covered under previous versions to 1.3 because they did not participate in that version. Thus, anyone who implements 1.3 could be liable to any patents Sun holds, even if those patents were granted usage under 1.2 or earlier.
This effectively means that ODF would become frozen at 1.2 for any GPL'd application, because if they were to release a version that supported the non-patent granted version, they would be in violation of the GPL.
If that were all it did, that would be fine. But that's not what it does. The patent pledge removes *ANY* patent grants from any version of ODF they do not participate in, not just any new ones.
You seem to have a knack for misinterpreting what you read.
I never said anything like what you suggest. What I said was that Microsoft started on their XML formats before the OASIS committee was formed and ODF, as a specification, did not exist (though OpenOffice's format, which ODF is based on, did).
Translation is the problem. Translation doesn't comply with numerous government regulations, because translation does not reproduce documents exactly, as is required by laws like HIPAA, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Too many people don't understand the issues involved with converting billions of legacy documents to another format.
How is that reasonable? It doesn't seem to be GPL compatible. The GPL requires that any potential patents be perpetually licensed (or at least unapplicable) to *ALL* subsequent versions, regardless of participation, and regardless of whether they are "official" or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. You're really trying to tell me that anyone that cares what the licenses say can't tell the difference?
I mean, the FSF has the GPL and the LGPL... are you suggesting that people can't tell the difference between those either?
No, the GP did not say "practically all". He said "all". Let me requote:
it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows
No, the TiVoization clause was a long time coming. It's still something many people don't agree with, such as Linus Torvolds, but the fact is that we well thought out. I was referring to the clause added at the last minute to try and thwart the patent licensing deals. That was not well thought out, and was reactionary.
That's nice. What does that have to do with the two licenses that were submitted to OS? None, since that license wasn't submitted.
Basically, you're argument makes as much sense as an argument that the GPL isn't viral because the terms of the BSD license are permissive.
Because the licenses contain no terms that restrict the end-user use of the software. Therefore, even if read literally, the license doesn't put any restrictions on end-user use. All the terms are distribution related. So what if using the software agrees to the terms, if you're not distributing it, the terms won't apply.
What does that have to do with the two licenses Microsoft submitted to the OSI (MS-PL and MS-CL)? You know, the ones that parent said wouldn't e approved because they contained Windows requirements?
Actually, yes. I have used mono, especially for asp.net and so far i've run into very few problems.
I'll turn this around. Have YOU actually used mono recently?
Yes, since none of those things work on other platforms
I think it's pretty obvious. Microsoft wrote their own licenses because they don't want to be at the mercy of the FSF, and their willingness to alter license terms to suit their political agendas. This is the same reason Apple, Sun, Mozilla, Apache, and many others have their own licenses as well.
Considering that *ALL* the terms of the license are distribution terms, it's clear that the term "use" is in reference to distribution. Neither the Microsoft Permissive License or the Community license put any restrictions on the use of the software as a user.
it seems that all Microsoft "open source" licenses require to run Windows
i censingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx
Please tell me where the word "Windows" even appears in this license. I don't see it. Maybe you should actually read them before you make such comments.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/l
Somehow I think you would refuse to comment on my arguments whether I am anonymous or not. That's your choice of course, but quite disingenuous to use anonyminity as an excuse to dodge difficult questions that challenge your position. Rob Weir does the same thing, only approving comments on his blog that he agrees with to give the imprssion of unanimous agreement on his position.
So that's really how Sun and it's employees choose to operate? Nice.
Analysis by independent counsel raised no such issue
*sigh*. Sadly, this is yet another case of the FSF, in retrospect, applying what it wishes the GPL says... rather than what it actually says. A good example of this is the FSF's assertions regarding dynamic linking and the GPL. They have this tendancy to want to re-interpret the GPL to match their current line of thinking in ways that do not stand up to a literal reading of the document.
In this case, the FSF sees no conflict between the FSF's stance on IP lawsuits and Sun's covenant. However, the GPL is quite specific in section 6 where it says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.", and the act of attaching a reciprocal license to the patent covent imposes such. The FSF, however, seems willing to overlook this because the patent covenant's is in line with their political philosophy. The problem, of course, is that it's at odds with the actual verbiage of the GPL.
So pardon me if I don't believe everything Eben or the FSF says regarding their interpretation of the GPL. If we took their interpretation, there would be a *LOT* of people infringing due to dynamic linking, among other issues. Section 6 is very clear in outlining that additional restrictions cannot be imposed on a GPL covered work.
Also, i've noticed a tendancy of Sun in particular to want to use "framing" as an excuse to cover up inconvenient wording. Neither I, nor a judge IME would give 2 shakes about how you "framed" it outside of the actual terms of the grant, they would care about the words. I am not twisthing any interpretation, i'm taking it's literal meaning. You qualify coverage for any given version (other than version 1.0) as being a condition of Sun participating. That is a literal reading of the prose.
Claiming that a later version will retain all the same coverage as earlier versions, regardless of Sun's participation is akin to claiming that if you relicense a work under a different license, then the old license still applies to parts of the new work that haven't changed. It doesn't.
Also, whether or not Sun intends to continue to participate in the OD TC is irrelevent. The mere possibility that if Sun doesn't participate, then all IP grants are out the window for future versions is enough to question the wording of the grant. I will grant you that term I used, "holding hostage", is alarmist... but the fact is, the wording gives Sun the power to do just that if they wanted to (not that I'm saying they would, just that it gives them the power to do so).
If I might say so, sir. You seem more than willing to nitpick every little license detail in OOXML, but are unwilling to consider that such problems might exist in your own. There's a word for that.
By the way, I notice that you don't seem to object to Eben's use of the term "Essential claims" in his analysis and how he applies it to ODF, unlike how you object to the use of the term in regards to OOXML.
I also note that you conveniently ignore another little "gotcha" in regards to the GPL and derivitive works. Specifically, if I implement an application based on ODF, but I modify the format for my own purposes, there is nothing in the covenant which protects that derived implementation. You can easily argue that this implementation is neither ODF 1.0 or a subsequent version of it, and therefore not covered. That's another clear incompatibility with the GPL, which requires derived works to be covered... regardless of whether or not they follow the specification.
In other words, your grant only protects full or partial implementations of the format, not derived versions of it. Let me give an example. Let's say I take OpenOffice source code, then change all the element names of the format to whatever I want. This is legally allowed under the LGPL, so long as I publish my source when I distribute it. However, i've lost the patent covenant protection by doing so, because it's no longe
Point of clarification, the first paragraph should be read in context of the claims below it. When I said "isn't bound to honor" i meant in subsequent versions.
That's nice, but you fail to mention that your own patent covenant has some loopholes and potholes as well. For instance, Sun only grants patent protection while they are participating in OASIS. Should Sun ever drop out, Sun isn't bound to honor the covenant. Further, the reciprocity requirements of the agreement are incompatible with the GPL (at least version 2, version 3 has some litigation clauses that may be substantially similar to this, and if so would not make the reciprocity requirements an addition restriction).
Your blog entry you pointed to claims that the grant doesn't end if sun doesn't participate, but that is highly misleading. No, the coverage doesn't end on versions sun previously participated in, but coverage isn't granted to any new versions that Sun doesn't participate in. The text of the grant clearly says:
"...or of any subsequent version thereof ("OpenDocument Implementation") in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation...".
By explicitly calling out ODF version 1.0 as being granted irrevocably, and then saying "or any other version that sun participates in", you are clearly NOT granting coverage if Sun doesn't participate in any given version. In other words, if Sun doesn't participate in version 1.3, then version 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 will have coverage, but anyone implementing version 1.3 would be doing so at their own risk, since Sun's patent grant wouldn't extend to that version or beyond, despite having coverage in earlier versions.
Effectively, this holds ODF hostage. Sun can threaten to stop participating at any time if they don't get their way, and that will effectively end ODF, since without the patent covenant, it would be too risky to implement.
Nobody wants to switch to Office 2007 because...
c uments-grounded.html
That's funny. In my own anectdotal experience, on the 15 flights i've taken in the last 3 months, every single time i've seen someone open up a (non-mac) laptop, they've had Office 2007 running. Probably 25 different people, randomly encountered. The ribbon bar is very noticable, even if you're just glancing in someones direction.
Now, maybe it's just that people that regularly fly on business trips have extra money lying around to upgrade, but it kind of blows your other theories. Especially since a) it's a free upgrade for anyone on software assurance, and b) it's not more difficult ot use, and c) i don't know of anyone that's needed to be retrained to use it. In fact, in my experience they find it easier to use than Office 2003.
And in regards to HIPPA and S-O, you should really read this article (in particular, page 3): http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/072307-opendo
And, before you jump to the conclusion that it was written by a shill, you should note that the authors are members of OASIS and one of them writes for Groklaw.
45.5 Million new .doc files were added in the last 3 months.
Yeah, using the logic of this article, ODF is a dismal failure... lol
Actually, Linux is the boot OS, and service console. The VMWare Kernel appears to be some kind of driver that loads after the Linux OS loads.
This looks to me like the same situation as Windows 95, it boots up with DOS then loads a kernel that takes over much of the functionality, or Netware that also loads boots with DOS then loads the kernel.
The problem I have is that it appears that the original Linux boot OS is still the one that's at the root of everything, though the VMWare virtual machines run under the vmkernel which runs on the Linux OS.
I thought so too, but then you keep implying that if ever a version is released that Sun doesn't participate in, then Sun will retroactively revoke (which is can't) its pledge for code used to implement all previous version.
I implied no such thing.
The part you keep getting confused about is the use of the word "version". A subsequent version isn't "all the code from the previous version, plus my new stuff". Each version is an independant entity, licensed independantly, regardless of whether some of that code was licensed under a previous version.
Each release has it's own "copy" of the license. That's how some projects can change their license entirely. No, you can't change the previous versions license retroactively, a new version has a new license, even if the license is the same as the old version, it's a seperate implementation, and the licenses only apply to that release. The GPL makes this a little confusing because they require that works based upon a particular version retain the same license as the work it was derived from, but that doesn't change the fact that the new release is a seperate instance, just with the same license.
Because of this, when you release your derived version of OpenOffice, with your own version of ODF, Sun's pledge won't apply to you, even for the parts that were covered under the work you derived from, because Sun did not participate in that versions development.
No, it doesn't remove the patent pledge from the 1.2 implemenation, but it does from the 1.3 implementation. The point being that Sun explicitly states version numbers of the documents that the pledge applies to, and uses the word "version".
Now, if 1.3 happens to be an extension to 1.2 or earlier, and it can be shown that the 1.3 is physically seperate from the 1.2 implementation that would be one thing, but you can't just say that the 1.2 functionality is still covered in a new version. Further, the reciprocity requirements mentioned are also GPL killers, since they add additional restrictions.
How about we take another example. Suppose someone decides to fork the specification and create their own version, forked from GPL'd code that deals with the "official" version. Sun's patent pledge doesn't cover them because they did not participate in the development of the forked version. That's a clear GPL no-no, which requires that any patents be licensed to anyone, and for those rights to be transferrable to derived works.
What you're doing is cherry picking individual words out of the entire statement and trying to assign them as you would like them to be assigned, ignoring the meaning of the sentance as a whole.
Let's break it down.
(1) Sun Irrevocably covenants that
(2) Subject to the reciprocity requirements described below
(3) it will not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the Open Document Format v1.0 Specification
(4) or of any subsquent version thereof in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation
What this is clearly saying is that the 1.0 version is fixed in stone. It cannot be revoked (1), unless you don't reciprocate, in which case it can be revoked (2).
This sentance alone would indicate that only version 1.0 is covered. So version 1.1 or greater would not be covered by the pledge. Thus, they added the section (4) "or of any subsequent version thereof", but that is modified by the "in which development Sun participates". Meaning that if Sun doesn't participate, then the patent grant doesn't apply to that version. Any of it. By forcing the patent license to be tied to versions, they made certain that the patent grant applies to versions.
The pledge is applied to a version of the specification. if Sun doesn't participate in that version, the patent pledge will not apply. That's pretty easy to read.
You are arguing semantics. Let's put this in a practical example.
Suppose Sun drops out of OASIS after version 1.2. Oasis goes on to create version 1.3 of ODF, which Sun does not particiapte in. Sun's patent pledge no longer covers 1.3 in any way, not even for patents that were present in 1.2, 1.1, and 1.0. In other words, they no longer grant those patents that were covered under previous versions to 1.3 because they did not participate in that version. Thus, anyone who implements 1.3 could be liable to any patents Sun holds, even if those patents were granted usage under 1.2 or earlier.
This effectively means that ODF would become frozen at 1.2 for any GPL'd application, because if they were to release a version that supported the non-patent granted version, they would be in violation of the GPL.
If that were all it did, that would be fine. But that's not what it does. The patent pledge removes *ANY* patent grants from any version of ODF they do not participate in, not just any new ones.
You seem to have a knack for misinterpreting what you read.
I never said anything like what you suggest. What I said was that Microsoft started on their XML formats before the OASIS committee was formed and ODF, as a specification, did not exist (though OpenOffice's format, which ODF is based on, did).
Translation is the problem. Translation doesn't comply with numerous government regulations, because translation does not reproduce documents exactly, as is required by laws like HIPAA, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Too many people don't understand the issues involved with converting billions of legacy documents to another format.
c uments-grounded.html
Read this, it adequately describes the issues:
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/072307-opendo
How is that reasonable? It doesn't seem to be GPL compatible. The GPL requires that any potential patents be perpetually licensed (or at least unapplicable) to *ALL* subsequent versions, regardless of participation, and regardless of whether they are "official" or not.