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.

Does this mean anything in the long-term?

Given Microsofts history of skirting around verdicts and legal agreements, how long will this format be valid?

How long before MS switches to either a new markup scheme, or introduces undocumented 'features'?

Mmm...

Cautious welcome. But it doesn't take into account all the Microsoft binary crap does it? Microsoft can still keep on moving the goalposts as usual, and XML schemas or no schemas it makes no difference. We need a fully open format.

"Hey! We're open" says Microsoft. "We use XML." Er. No.

Hmph

THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS. MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.

vs.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

Someone needs to tell Microsoft not to use so many caps, it's like YELLING.

Defeated by my own cleverness and the lameness filter. Now I need to type at random in order to dodge the bullet. Neat-o. Nope, not enough yet. This is better than resorting to cut and pasting of the usual "Important stuff" list, don't you. Although it is rather early for this. DAMN IT still too many caps, although I guess that didn't help, now did it. I guess I could look at the code and see what the percentage is before it dies, but that's way harder than just typing until my fingers bleed.

Re:Hmph

In legal terms, the CAPS is meant as a vocalization and pronunciation guide. In this case, you should shriek in an almost uncontrolled manner with a thick German accent. It also helps if you stand on a podium.

Not so fast

Wait a second ... I think the XML-format document types are only available for corporate versions of MS office. If that is true there still will be a lot of propiertary binary-only .DOCuments around in the future.

Nice tactics: MS now tells everybody "we use open standards" (as they already do) but the users keep saving files in closed formats.

Re:Not so fast

> Wait a second ... I think the XML-format document types are only available for corporate versions of MS office. If that is true there still will be a lot of propiertary binary-only .DOCuments around in the future.

You are wrong. Word Standard Edition can save into WordML (which schema has been published). Enterprise version allows you to map certain parts of documents into Xml with customer specified schema.

legal terms

Legal Notice

Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the "Specification"), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make:

Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at: [here] [microsoft.com].

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

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. This patent license is available at this location: [here] [microsoft.com].

THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" [blah blah blah]

The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.

No other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.

following that second link...

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.

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. A "Licensed Implementation" means only those specific portions of a software product that read and writes files that are fully compliant with the specifications for the Office Schemas. The term "Necessary Claims" means claims of a patent or patent application that are owned or controlled by Microsoft and that are necessarily infringed by reading or writing files pursuant to the requirements of the Office Schemas. A claim is necessarily infringed only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming to the specification because there is no technically reasonable non-infringing alternative for reading or writing such files. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims: (i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties; (ii) covering any enabling technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product incorporating a Licensed Implementation (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet or presentation features or functionality, programming interfaces, protocols), or (iii) covering the reading or writing of files generally or covering the reading or writing of files other than those complying with the requirements of the 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."

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 distr

This should shut everyone up

Maybe now we will stop hearing all the bitching about how MS is evil.

MS Link is 404'ed

The patent license requires everybody to prominently display this text on any product that can read/write Microsoft XML documents:

"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]

Too bad the link leads to a 404!

hell has frozen over

Here's a blurb from the sister license granting use of their software patents related to the XML formats:

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.

A bit close to the GPL in some respects, hmm?

I wonder, could these licenses get the OSI good housekeeping seal of approval?

But you can't CALL it MS-Word

The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft.

So you can write an app which transforms a Word doc to something else, but you can't refer to your app as a Microsoft Word file converter. So how long until we'll have a "Converter for the Evil Empire's word processor document type" project on Sourceforge?

Intelligent Questions?

Can someone clarify for me what this part means...

Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas

I'm assuming it's actually fairly innocent but just how wide a scope does it have under the word 'relating' ?

Finally, what are the legal constraints on M$ changing or withdrawing this licence at a later date? Presumably they are no more limiting than those on the GPL, but then I've never worried about Linus or RMS withdrawing rights from Linux, wheras with M$...

ITIAL's (I Think I'm A Lawyer) out there who can explain?

A step in the right direction

Despite the posts above about the requirement for patent licences to use the format (how can you patent a file format, I mean prior art!!) this is a step in the right direction.

I expect the open-source office apps to adopt it as an option, and I expect it to not work quite right enough when it goes through an MS->OO->MS cycle, but regardless, it's a wider chink in their armour than they had before, and it's a real argument that they're not obeying their own specs now "Look!" (if so, of course...)

Simon.

Interesting links

This press release [www.oio.dk] from danish govt. agency Open public Information Online (OIO) has more info.

Read the patent license [microsoft.com] for yourself. (The license for the schemas themselves is basically BSD)

Also this (danish) Computerworld article [computerworld.dk] quoted MS EMEA boss Patrick de Smedt calling Interoperability a "holy grail", an "advantage to the ordinary consumer" and Competition "a very important part of our strategy." The quotes have now been removed again (why??)

Don't start hacking yet! (PATENT ALERT)

From the Legal info link.
"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. This patent license is available at this location: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp."
(And just for giggles that link is no good)
An "Open" XML schema that needs a patent license to write software that can read or write it is rapidly approaching the speed of useless. So if you had a plan to start work on an Openoffice filter find out what that patent license entails.

interesting

<!doctype msofficexml version='1.0'>
<cmdlist>
<command>
<mailto>[e-mail] </mailto >
<file>C:\\Documents~1\my_address_book.pdb</file&gt ;
</command >

<command type="system" action="format c:\"/>
</cmdlist>

oops. parse error. but a clean HD!

I wonder...

Just how long will it be before Microsoft releases a Word Document ML Plus format that is not so open?

Let's face it, Microsoft loves proprietary technology that it owns and that it controls. There's no long-term advantage to it whatsoever in creating a truly open file format - the biggest reason why Microsoft Office applications are so ubiquitous is because people need to read Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access documents they've been sent, not necessarily because those are the best tools for everybody.

Word Document ML is a PR exercise. It's Microsoft saying "See, we're nice and friendly and open, too", at a time when its revenues are beginning (perhaps not significantly yet) to be threatened by open source alternatives. Long-term though, Microsoft will shut up shop again and bring users back to the fold with a proprietary version that's "improved", "enhanced" or "more secure" in some way.

Want proof? Just look at Hotmail. When Microsoft bought it, it promised that the Hotmail service wouldn't be compromised in any way, and that it would continue to remain free. Well, the basic service might still be free but it's been crippled in so many ways - mail filtering that says it will delete junk mail in 24 hours but doesn't, incredibly bad junk mail filtering in the first place, even fewer mail sorting rules allowed now than were allowed a few years ago, a very limited number of addresses and domains that can be blocked, etc. All tactics to get you to subscribe to their enhanced Hotmail service, which has some new features but is made up of a lot of the stuff that Microsoft has stripped from the basic service.

Will people use Word Document ML format? If it becomes standard in Microsoft Word then of course they will. They'll have no choice - Microsoft has a practical monopoly when it comes to everyday file formats. Will Microsoft eventually hijack Word Document ML format by making a future iteration proprietary once more and hence shut out any competing product when it releases them via a patch or whatever? Of course it will.

Why am I so sure of this? Because Microsoft is just like the scorpion in the tale of the scorpion and the frog [allaboutfrogs.org]. It's in its nature.

Nice, but no cigar...

Microsoft is trying to appear "Open" while denying the actuallity thereof.

Does anyone seriously believe that third party developers will be able to write Office document generators and formatters with this information? Do we really believe that:

1. Microsoft will comply fully with the spec (it's disclaimed in the legal terms), and
2. a developer will be able to write document parsers for these schema without infringing on Microsoft's patents?

Given the fact that there will always be legal encumbrances with anything interfacing with Microsoft technologies, I believe these schema would be better left ignored by the OS community. With Open Office and KOffice maturing (and the former running on Windows, and available for free), there's no good reason to cater to Microsoft document protocols anymore. They are simply irrelevant.

And no, we in the OS community don't have to copy everything that Microsoft does. Compatibility with Microsoft is no longer a necessity.

Close, Microsoft, but no cigar. Kudos for the marketspeak.

Valid, non-proprietary XML?

I just launched a copy of Microsoft Word 2003, opened a copy of one of my documents, selected "Save As..." and chose "XML Document." I then tried to open the resulting *.XML file in TextPad, which gave me the following error:

WARNING: "r1-Vendor_Evaluations.xml" contains characters that do not exist in code page 1252 (ANSI - Latin I). They will be converted to the system default character, if you click OK.

Am I misinterpreting something, or is not the whole point of XML that it is both human- and machine-readable? This doesn't even seem to be properly machine-readable.

The format is not 100% open, there is binary data

The format for macros and some other things is not specified (at least not enough to recreate them). The format is still not portable for advanced features. Hopefully Microsoft isn't pushing this as an "open" format, because it isn't really open if it still has blackboxes in it. From the spec:

For VBA code, a base64-encoded version of the binary file generated by the VBA editor is held in the binData element inside the docSuppData element. The binData element has a name attribute whose value must be set to "editdata.mso". The docSuppData element is a top-level element under the wordDocument root element, and follows the styles element in a document created by Word.

FYI, OpenOffice XML

I already have the ability to save my word processing documents as XML. I already have the ability to transform them into other things I want. So do you. check it out. [openoffice.org]

I'm sure someone, someplace is already working on the appropriate xslt to transform Microsoft's stuff into this more open format, and I'm sure Microsoft has some ace up their sleeve technically or legally to push it into a 'gray' area...

But I just cannot imagine anyone having the gaul to say that my data is only available to me in a format that they control the terms and conditions on. how successful would a paper company be if they put 'terms and conditions' on the use of their wood pulp?

Proprietary is obsolete

Why bother with proprietary file formats when you have DRM? Make a mendacious nod to 'open file format', and then lock stuff up behind the DMCA. If you want to read a DRM encoded word document, you'll need word. Period.

Wrong category

Shouldn't the category for Microsoft Developers be:

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers.

and shouldn't the logo be sweaty armpits?

No joke ...

XML parsing error

fatal parsing error: error occurred while parsing element in line 1, column 1
i
^

What have they patented?

Is Microsoft claiming to have a patent on reading and writing XML?
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp [microsoft.com]

An attempt to go after alternate implementations?

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

Sounds like they are trying to prevent people from adding improvements to it.

So, if you write you own code from scratch to read and write MS Word files and you add in your own features, wouldn't that be a derivative? Are they trying to go after suites like open office who may not implement Word Doc processing to spec?

Well, I'll be... XML actually works!

I have to admit, I have been skeptical of XML for quite a while, but I can see the advantages with a document like this. With Word being such a proprietary tool for so long, this will finally enable people to create "Word" compatible word processors that are actually 100% compatible, since all they have to do is generate an XML document, not some convoluted binary guacamole.

As open as a punji pit.

So, here's the spec, but if you talk about it you'll be sued by our trademark&copyright lawyers, or if you read or write to the format you'll be sued by our patent lawyers. Where do you want to go today? Jail?

Where does it say they're going to use it..?

One of the things that's interesting to me is how much Microsoft generates that never gets used. I'll believe that they're using 'open formats' when that's the default file format for saving Microsoft Office documents.
As it stands, they could make it an import/export option, and relegate it to the level of CSV for spreadsheets.

Sure, it's there, but it's little more than a checkbox they can trumpet..

A drowning man...

...last kicks

That is what we call this in Mexico. Now this is what i call competitive pressure.

Now what about excel?

Oh and BTW, now MS is playing catch-up with OO.o.

Thanks microsoft, i think you are starting to 'get' it.

patented XML schemas???

Apart from the legal loopholes in Microsoft's license that are big enough to drive a truck through, much more worrisome is the fact that Microsoft asserts that they are getting a patent on an XML Schema. What is the novelty in that schema? It's a standard XML representation of well-known word processing data structures and concepts.

This would be a very bad precedent. Microsoft is really trying to push the limits of patentability and testing what they can get away with. Their patent application on .NET APIs is a similar trial balloon.

That is something open source and free software developers should really worry about.

woah, it validates!

http://www.hcrc.ed.ac.uk/~richard/xml-check.cgi?.. .&namespaces=on [ed.ac.uk]

XML checker results

The document appears to be well-formed. What gives?

DRM and the new Word format

According to a previous Slashdot story (also on CNET at http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5069246.html), Microsoft is trying to push toward a more complete DRM technology, quite likely filtering all requests for document access through one of Microsoft's centralized servers.

Since this document format is "open sourced" that probably means there's stuff in there Microsoft isn't telling us about. They likely won't reveal the secret behind their second most popular product line that easily.

That said, I'll be curious to see how this will affect development of OpenOffice and equivalents in the near future. Is it better to try to reverse engineer a Microsoft format (and possibly risk patent infringement) or just go with something else? More importantly, will businesses be willing to adopt it if not every Microsoft product can save in this format?

fool me once...

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Just because they did something today, does not mean you can conclude on their motives or future actions in a positive light. Given their past record, the anti-MS-group (aka: anyone with brain) has a high chance of being correct.

The answers will come with time.

Hitler did good stuff for his country and was popular and then his motives became obvious to the world...
Get used to being disapointed in waiting for the populace to catch up.

No GPL ???

Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License:

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

No GPL ?

These schema files are completely useless!

First of all, office.xsd (saves as office.xml) contains this import:

<xsd:import namespace="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" schemaLocation="C:\SCHEMAS\vml.xsd"></xsd:import>

They don't seem to provide a working link (there is a broken one) to vml.xsd and there is no way you could count on a system having it in C:\SCHEMAS (particularly on a Linux box). You also are prohibited from modifying the file to fix it.

It also appears their license requirements contradict themselves since they require you to state that you are including Microsoft intellectual property and also preclude you from using Microsoft trademarks ("Microsoft" is one of these").

Tex

After many episodes with MS Word and OOo, you know what I've found? Lyx and Latex are still the champ.

Still Need to Know

Whether these schemata are sufficient for someone besides MS to get a suitable XML document to render on the screen or the printed page in exactly the same fashion that MS does?

The reason I ask is that earlier complaints about Word not being an open documented format were directed to an RTF specification at Microsoft.

But the specification was insufficient for anyone who wanted to know how a Word document would be rendered - for that there were hidden rules in Word's codebase, rules that would change over time, or from platform to platfrom (ask anyone on a Mac).

Stop babbling about clean rooms already.

There's a couple issues here:

1) The clause forbidding you from modifying and making derivatives of the specification. Well, certainly, the specification is copyrightable and MS is within their rights to make this demand. Any reverse-engineered description of the file format would not be covered by this clause

2) The part claiming various restrictions on implementing the specifications. This one's just plain strange. MS doesn't say they've patented the format. Nor do they say that they haven't. They simply suggest that they _might_ have. And if you want to be covered if they have, you've got to accept their terms. Which include not mentioning their name, no sublicensing, including the clause, etc.

IF they have a valid patent, they can enforce this. They can enforce it even if you never looked at the specification. Even if the format was reverse-engineered by a couple of guys from Elbonia who'd never heard of Microsoft until you showed them the files. Wouldn't matter -- if you wanted to read&write Word files, it'd be their way, or the highway.

If, on the other hand, they don't have a valid patent, you can read their specification and implement away. As long as you don't incorporate the spec into your work, copyright can't prevent you from writing an implementation. You can claim compatibility with Microsoft Word or Office (under trademark fair use). You don't have to include any verbiage of theirs. You can print out their license with nontoxic inks on soft paper and use it as it is best intended.

So which is it? Well, Microsoft isn't referring to any particular patent number, so I suspect their license is 95% FUD. The other 5% is that they probably have an application in with the USPTO which covers some either obvious, overbroad, or non-novel things in the Word file format, which will probably be approved because the USPTO approves everything. IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, there's certainly no advantage in accepting the license until Microsoft at least provides a patent number demonstrating that you're actually _getting something_ for accepting their restrictions.

They had this before, it was called RTF

I just got done coding up a Word-targeted document and as "close" as I could come was to work it up in RTF, and that was pretty damned close. I got their full spec and dug through it a bit and it seems like nearly every feature available I could think of that was available word was -also- available in the RTF specification.

Further, modern Word reads it like it was a native document and doesn't complain when you save it back as RTF.

Why is that, I wonder? Made me wonder how much different the binary/"proprietary" format was from the RTF -- just some binary representations of the same things perhaps?

Implementation Patent License

For once, it seems that Microsoft is doing the right thing. It might not be altruism that's motivating them (more like the sound of a dozen foreign governments moving to open source or threatening Microsoft that they'll move to open source), but I'm not going to hold it against them. IANAL, but it looks like the Patent license (which they stipulate for software that will read or write documents conforming to the schemas) is compatible with implementations that are open-source (obviously not the GPL, though).

Beware of Gates Bearing Gifts

So, Gates has gotten religion, and decided to open up his proprietary file formats because ... why? Beats me, but somehow I don't think it's going to add up to anything good for the non-Microsoft portion of our industry. Call me paranoid if you like: but there's a hook in that bait somewhere, and I for one am in no hurry to bite!

Tex

After many episodes with MS Word and OOo, you know what I've found? Lyx and Latex are still the champ.

What type of documentation?

MS also has released documentation for the RTF specification. However, if you look at this in detail you will soon release that they have only released enough information make it appear open. Many tags are given such brief descriptions without any examples that you cannot hope to guess what their purpose is.
So, my question is this documation of the Office formats like the RTF specification (i.e. worthless) or is it a complete specification with every tag explained 100% with examples (i.e. like the HTML specification)

Re:Is this really microsoft

>> Microsoft allowing anyone to access their document formatting?

Yes, it's true. And the format is surprisingly easy to understand. Here it is:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<MicrosoftWordXMLDocument version="1.0">
<DocumentBody>
<![CDATA[3kd8dkfjd kxodkrjeis kfjdiwlekrj
df38d8f cj384k3j*#&@)x3 kj454t7u
dfj3kj43 83k*#45j3k 2ldkfjfkf*3&
...
dkj38d9feod8 sjvkcjf0d]]>
</DocumentBody>
</MicrosoftWordXMLDocument>

Re:Uh oh

Quick! Find something bad to say about Microsoft!

OK, they are a bunch of arseclowns.

Re:hate to rub it in...but i told ya so!

excepting, that many people have already posted: The usage of this document specification is limited in such a way as to prevent it from being released in a GPL'd app. So YES it is released, BUT it's just another lame attempt by MS to crush the GPL (NOT UNLIKE FUNNELLING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO A DYING COMPANY)