Microsoft Word Document ML Schemas Published

Lars Munch writes "On Monday the 17th November the xml schemas for the Word Document ML along with documentation, was uploaded to the Infostructurebase (ISB). With the Word Document ML specification anybody can generate, view and process Microsoft word documents on any format." (Here are the legal terms under which the schemas can be used.) "The Word Document ML is based on the W3C specification eXtensible Markup Language (XML), there by providing documents that are easy to integrate into a large variety of systems. The Danish Government Infostructurebase is the first schema repository to make the schemas accessible to the public. The Microsoft Office Document ML schemas and documentation can now be downloaded from the ISB Repository." There are more links on this page.

Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

I was struck by Microsoft's about-face on proprietary data formats when I attended their "Microsoft Office System Launch" (details here [officesystemlaunch.com]) earlier this month.

On the "Development" track, I was hoping to get some information on interfacing Office tools as objects in an existing (very large) VB application. Well, I didn't get that, but I did get to see how Microsoft is using XML to cut off one of Open Source software's big draws: open file formats. As mentioned, one of the big selling points was that you no longer have to install an app like Word on your server. You can instead use any XML-generating program to create fully compliant Word/Excel/Whatever files.

So if the PHB [dilbert.com] was almost talked into Open Source by the security issues of installing a virus portal like Word on a trusted system behind the firewall, Microsoft just cut your legs off.

An interesting case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, *then* beat 'em."

By the way, I bailed out of the "Development" track at lunch. The presentation didn't get into code at all... it was just a demo of how new features in Word will now allow anyone to create XML Schemas and "Solutions" (groups of schemae), and thereby call themselves a "programmer". Just what we need, another way to quickly generate bloated, write-only code.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

Microsoft isn't going to give up the golden strength of a file format lock-in any time soon, even if they let companies use custom indexing tools on their store of documents (which is really what this whole XML business is about).

Unless I'm missing something, I think this does break the lock-in, in large part. With a published, standardized format, non-Microsoft tools can implement support for it, and users can expect it to work reliably. Openoffice.org, for example, can probably support the new MS format simply by adding a pair of XSLT stylesheets (though they may want to take a different approach for performance).

This means that users of non-MS tools will be able to create documents, confident that MS Office users will be able to read them. There are still limitations going the other way, but that still means that non-MS tools only have to write import filters for the old Office formats, halving the work, and that is really won't be an issue in the business world, where Office Pro is the norm anyway.

I think think this move will prove painful for MS, but probably less painful than sticking with completely closed formats, given the way they've been getting beat up about it.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

Slight clarification: Only the Pro edition can create XML Office documents, but any edition of Office 2003 can read them.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

Oops, I need to clarify my clarification. I'm talking only about XML schemas (customer-defined XSDs, not the Office ML standards) and maybe XSLT (XML Stylesheet Language Transformations) files too, but not regular Office documents! To my knowledge, all editions of Office 2003 can create regular Office files in XML.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

An interesting case of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, *then* beat 'em."

I think the issue here is that they have already won [essential.org].

Since their Office suite has %95+ of the Windows and Macintosh market share, why not open the specs up?

This leads to other apps copying the MS specs and PHB's to conclude that since all documents are now MS Office documents, why not buy the brand most compatible with the format? I.E. Microsoft.

--
Tired of spammers? Kill them all [si20.com]! Let the irony of this sig sort 'em out.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

why not buy the brand most compatible with the format?

That's an easy one to answer. You've got 300-400 machines that require an office application suite, but you've got a small budget. Complete compatilibility is not much of an issue if you can save (400*$600) $180,000 - $240,000, yet run a "mostly compatible" suite. Now, with the opening of the format, that "mostly compatible" becomes "compatible."

Then there's the whole issue of MS Licensing 6.0 (as if it's a whole other application itself).

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

Now, with the opening of the format, that "mostly compatible" becomes "compatible."

Did any of you read the actual Microsoft patent statement? It says you must obtain a license if you USE the information in a seperate application for compatability. Quoting them:

"There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification."

Technically, anyone that looks at it, and uses it to put compatability for Open Office, are infringing on their patent. And now that the spec is in the open, its very easy for microsoft to say "we opened it up, and they infringed, this is why we dont like open source". This also means, that if you DON'T look at it, and instead do manage to reverse engineer it, it is likely that a judge will believe MS that you are lying and instead just read their "open" standard.

Its open, as long as you don't use it.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

Word will now allow anyone to create XML Schemas and "Solutions" (groups of schemae)...

Just thought you would like to know, the plural of schema is schemata.

Mr. Language Person

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

That certainly is a nice pro-Microsoft spin you put on things, but perhaps you can explain the logic behind your statements. How did they "out-open-source" Open Source software? How can they be more open that what is already completely open?

I am still skeptical that Microsoft has truly made this open. Excuse me, but I don't just blindly accept what Microsoft says at face value. Microsoft has a serious credibility problem from lying about so much for so long. Even if Microsoft has finally caught up to the Open Source community regarding the openness of file formats, that helps OpenOffice and its users. It would make me feel even better about NOT spending hundreds of dollars on an office suite every few years.

Microsoft just cut our legs off over security issues? Do you think opening a Word file format just magically makes all of their security issues go away?

I saw some other Microsoft cheerleader congratulate Microsoft for "leapfrogging" Linux by finally providing a decent (remains to be seen) shell, but this person did not explain how this infant shell surpassed bash, pdksh, or zsh. Just because someone makes some wildly unsubstantiated claim about Microsoft's superiority does not make it true. Why should I believe this is anything more than PR and spin? I'm not convinced they have joined us, let alone beat us, at anything. Honestly, please explain your rationale.

Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

I like this part the best:

No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.

I just had a flashback to when I was a kid and my Dad was giving me the old "do as I say, not as I do" lecture...

IS this relevant? Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source

(Forwarded from Patents list)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Patents] MS Office 2003 XML patented
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:11 +0100
From: Carsten Svaneborg
Organization: www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de
To: [e-mail]

Hi! Just came across the following:

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpat en tlicense.asp
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License

Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for
you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that
read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the
Office Schemas.

So usage of MS Word XML files requires a patentlicense.

:

You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license
terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this
license. You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

The licence is royalty free, but GPL 7 requires the right to sublicence
patent rights to the people who obtain a GPL program from you.

so in other words Microsoft is using patents to prevent GPLed programs from
accessing the XML format that MS Word will be using.

This is very good timing, and goes to show how important it is to ensure
that the software patent directive has articles that protects
interoperativity from consituting patentinfringemet.

--
Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg
http://www.softwarepatenter.dk

The patent license terms seem reasonable...

....seems like all you have to do is put a notice in the code [microsoft.com] about using the spec. Sounds kind of like the original BSD license - i.e., with the advertising clause.

Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable...

It's NOT reasonable. They don't allow any modifications or derivatives of the schema without permission.

So, Microsoft will be free to continue changing their format with each new release, breaking all the open source programs for a time, causing time and trouble for users to upgrade.

We don't like Word formats because they change frequently, and they are developed in a direction that suits Microsoft. How does this change anything?

Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable...

I'll take this over having to reverse-engineer the specs and deal with potential IP issues. For once, Microsoft did us a favor, even if it does come with strings attatched.

No. This is worse than before

Previously we could reverse engineer their format and use it. Their work was covered by copyright, no problem once we create our own implementation.

This schema is patented. Patents are an exclusive right to use an idea. Now if you use their format without upholding their conditions, you're a criminal, even if you figured out the format yourself.

By publishing the format, they can cast doubt on anyone that does reverse engineer it. "I bet you read the spec on line".

Also, being able to view the format isn't much use. It's XML, but that doesn't mean it will be meaningful cleartext. They can simply uuencode a big block of binary data, stick it between two tags, and it's valid XML.

Learn from the past. Microsoft are not here to do us favours.

I call bullshit

This schema is patented.

Microsoft knows full well that an XML schema cannot be patented. The patent nonsense is a way to scare off open source developers. They may hold patents on some algorithms they've used to implement this in MS Office, but we don't have to use those same algorithms to read those documents with an XML schema capable parser and do whatever we like with them.

Unfortunately, not bullshit

First, remember that file formats in general are patentable. The ASF video format is one example.

Some might say: "But that's a binary format."

Doesn't matter. Microsofts Office-xml format has plenty of binary data. They uuencode it so that it's official XML, but it's still encrypted or command content, not cleartext.

What if Microsoft embedded an ASF video in the word format?
They'd have to uuencode it first, then stick it in. Would this suddenly make the ASF format non-patented? no. And once parts of a format are patented, you can't recreate the whole format without negotiating a patent deal with the holder.

Yes, the law is an ass. No, you can't circumvent it with clever words.

Re:No. This is worse than before

Don't forget that in the EU patents can not be abused in this, since the nice people from FFII and others got through an amendment that you are free to use patented technologies for interoperability - and I can't really imagine any other uses for a fileformat besides of interoperability.

Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable...

> They don't allow any modifications or
> derivatives of the schema without permission

Hm. I guess I'm not sure what would be gained by doing that - i.e., changing the spec and republishing it. Why would that be a good thing to do, even if you could?

> Microsoft will be free to continue
> changing their format with each new
> release, breaking all the open source
> programs for a time

Right... but couldn't the same be said of any API? I mean, if the Apache plugin API [apache.org] changes, I'll need to rewrite my mod_foo module to use the new API.

Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable...

>Hm. I guess I'm not sure what would be gained by doing that - i.e., changing the spec and republishing it. Why would that be a good thing to do, even if you could?

1) All specifications are incomplete. The requirements that it addresses today are not static, and in 10 years there will be new requirements.
2) Microsoft will change their XML schema.
3) Historically, Microsoft has done things that are in the interest of Microsoft. Everyone else must follow along.
4) Therefore, the changes that Microsoft will make the the XML schema have a high liklihood of being advantageous to Microsoft.

When Microsoft keeps all the real control of the format, it turns any open source developer into a sharecropper. We're going to be plowing a field that we don't own, and the price we pay is going to entrench the Microsoft format even further.

The patent license terms are "404 not found"

You have to display the following text in any derived work:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true [microsoft.com]."

Now try the link ...

Re:The patent license terms are "404 not found"

Cache it. If Microsoft takes you to court for abusing the license, tell them and prove to them that you followed the link, and that there were no applicable license restrictions. You followed their directions to the word (pun intended).

But can the code be GPL'd?

Here's the part of the patent license I don't think I understand completely:

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

IANAL, but I think this says no open source implementation is possible, doesn't it?

Re:But can the code be GPL'd?

I think you are making 2 mistakes here:

(1) You say: Open Source != GNU Public License..
There's no such thing as the "GNU Public License"; you probably mean the GNU General Public License.

(2) Microsoft's license says: "You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights". This means if you write a program using Microsoft's license, and license your preogram under the BSDL, then someone using your program isn't licensed to modify it. I would imagine MS have done this deliberately to sabotage open source / free software implementations of their XML schemas.

Free as in... BOW BEFORE YOUR MASTER

With thanks to Seth Johnson on the DMCA Discuss list for forwarding this earlier today:

Subject: [Patents] MS Office 2003 XML patented
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:48:11 +0100
From: Carsten Svaneborg
Organization: www.mpipks-dresden.mpg.de
To: [e-mail]

Hi! Just came across the following:

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpat en tlicense.asp
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License

Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for
you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that
read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the
Office Schemas.

So usage of MS Word XML files requires a patentlicense:

You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license
terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this
license. You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

The licence is royalty free, but GPL 7 requires the right to sublicence
patent rights to the people who obtain a GPL program from you.

so in other words Microsoft is using patents to prevent GPLed programs from
accessing the XML format that MS Word will be using.

This is very good timing, and goes to show how important it is to ensure
that the software patent directive has articles that protects
interoperativity from consituting patentinfringemet.

Possible solution

This is a real problem. However I think it may perhaps be circumvented by having a MSOfficeOpenOffice converter under a BSD-like license. The combination of the BSD'd plugin and eg. OpenOffice might however infringe patents if they were too closely integrated. Murky legal waters. Ugh :-(

Re:Free as in... BOW BEFORE YOUR MASTER

I think you may be incorrect...

Anything uploaded as specs to "Infostructurebase" can not be, by their own mission statement, lock-in proprietary technology.

Check out their overview [isb.oio.dk].

--
Tired of spammers? Kill them all [si20.com]! Let the irony of this sig sort 'em out.

Could the problem possibly be in the GPL?!

So, let me get this straight:

Microsoft is allowing you to license the patent free of charge but not to sublicense it. The GPL requires that you be allowed to sublicense patents applicable to GPLed software. And that's somehow Microsoft's fault?

GPL does not require sublicensing

GPL 7 requires the right to sublicence patent rights to the people who obtain a GPL program from you.

Not true. Section 7 of the GPL requires that patent rights be publicly available, but it does not require that you personally sublicense those patent rights.

Specifically, GPL section 7 says:

... if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Since the Microsoft patent license does permit royalty-free redistribution, it does not contradict the GPL in this regard (although it may have other incompatibilities; I have not looked at the whole thing thoroughly yet).

Not true

You omit the relevant parts of the patent license [microsoft.com]:

Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas. [...] If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true."

You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

The license explicitly allows you to sell/offer/distribute an implementation of their standard. The rest appears to be a bunch of legalese saying that you can't transfer your distribution rights to other people; it's not saying that you can't transfer your distribution. Since anyone else who feels like modifying your GPL'd code is allowed to sell/offer/distribute Microsoft's XML standard too under their license, I fail to see why this is hostile to the GPL license. The GPL itself only requires that a patent license be publicly available, not that the rights themselves have to be transfered to the users. Since the Microsoft license lets anyone use implementations royalty-free, it shouldn't be a problem.

At long last

Finally. As a 100% Linux user, who has to use Microsoft products at university it has been a pain doing my work at home and transferring it over (without losing any details at all)...

*smiles*

What does this mean ...

Am I going to still be able to edit [friend's] microsoft word docs in openoffice (my understanding was I wasn't going to be able to in the next microsoft release)?

Open Source Implications?

From http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp [microsoft.com]:

"...You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights..."

That whole page is worth reading, but doesn't this phrase in particular damage the ability to make use of the information in open source code, whether GPL or BSD?

The page also says:

"...If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

'This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true [microsoft.com].'...

Unfortunately, the page they ask you to link to doesn't actually exist...

Re:Open Source Implications?

Most probably the intention is to make the XML formats 'incompatible' with the GPL. However if this is the case, there is at least one easy work around, namely to define a neutral XML format (say the OOo XML format) and use a non-GPL 'connector' (which carefully observes the Microsoft patent license conditions) to do the dirty work.

Any 'open' standard that imposes conditions on its use is not actually open at all. The owner can decide at any time to change the license, and this in itself should be enough reason to avoid this XML interface.

I believe these XML standards are what is technically called a "honeypot".

Of course, I may be paranoid, this may indeed be a munificent gesture by Microsoft who have realized that their XML schemas will serve the global community, add value to their products, and encourage a new generation of Office extension applications that will halt the trickle/rush/avalanche of Linux conversions.

Indeed.