Microsoft Word Document ML Schemas Published 439
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
At long last (Score:1, Interesting)
*smiles*
Open Source Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)
From http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpaten tlicense.asp [microsoft.com]:
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:
Unfortunately, the page they ask you to link to doesn't actually exist...
Not so fast (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice tactics: MS now tells everybody "we use open standards" (as they already do) but the users keep saving files in closed formats.
Possible solution (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent license terms are "404 not found" (Score:5, Interesting)
Now try the link
hell has frozen over (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Intelligent Questions? (Score:4, Interesting)
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$...
ITIAL's (I Think I'm A Lawyer) out there who can explain?
But can the code be GPL'd? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I think this says no open source implementation is possible, doesn't it?
Interesting links (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the patent license [microsoft.com] for yourself. (The license for the schemas themselves is basically BSD)
Also this (danish) Computerworld article [computerworld.dk] quoted MS EMEA boss Patrick de Smedt calling Interoperability a "holy grail", an "advantage to the ordinary consumer" and Competition "a very important part of our strategy." The quotes have now been removed again (why??)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free as in... BOW BEFORE YOUR MASTER (Score:1, Interesting)
If person A understands the spec and XML well, writes a spec for person B, C and D to implement.
Person B, C and D go off and write filters without direct knowledge of micro$oft XML.
Person A judges the results without touching any code and picks a winner.
I believe this is fully legal and there is nothing MickeySoft can do to stop it.
Not true (Score:5, Interesting)
The format is not 100% open, there is binary data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does this mean ... (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you do, do you really trust Microsoft to keep it secret?
Re:But can the code be GPL'd? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable... (Score:2, Interesting)
Errfice 1.0 can open lots and lots of files...in addition to native StarOffice/OpenOffice document compatibility, there is another company that has a name like "Muckrosaft" that makes an office suite called "Orifice" with which this software is compatible (can you guess which company it is?)
You can:
etc... ;)
Re:The patent license terms seem reasonable... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong! The specifications are one thing, but once
you make code that uses it, you will have to
follow Microsoft's licensing scheme, since they
claim that their XML Office Schema is patented.
Here is the link to that:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpa
The link on this page that references the actual
details gives a 404, but I would bet that it only
allows their schema to be used by closed source
products. You can bet that GPL or BSD code will
simply never be able to receive a license. The
minute there is a Linux distro that can handle
MS Office products with Open Source/Free Software,
there will be a patent violation suit filed.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I hope
that I am.
Yes. (Score:2, Interesting)
Where does it say they're going to use it..? (Score:2, Interesting)
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..
Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
Namespaces... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No. This is worse than before (Score:1, Interesting)
As soon as we adopt the EU-standing on things, this'll be changed obviously.
Closed formats are the reason for Word dominance (Score:2, Interesting)
Whilst they already may have a very large market share, if there's suddenly 100% open specs, then Word's market share will shrink. People can quite easily undercut the cost. Whilst some PHBs might go for MS, if another word processor offers 100% compatability for a tenth the price... Well, money speaks loudly.
Which is why I doubt Microsoft's intentions. Office isn't really that good a product. It crashes, for one. Look at, say, Warcraft III. A vastly more complex piece of software that is incredibly more stable. Whilst word processors may take a lot of coding, if the standards were truly open, then MS would have to compete on a level playing field. And I can't think of a single software program, on a level playing field, they've produced that is better than the competition.
Compare Apache to IIS. Compare ASP to PHP. Compare IE to Firebird. None of Microsoft's software is outstanding in any technical way. When not bundled in with the OS, or locked in with compatibility issues, MS loses out.
Still Need to Know (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
IS this relevant? Re:Out-Open-Sourcing Open Source (Score:5, Interesting)
-------- 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: patents@aful.org
Hi! Just came across the following:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpa
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
Stop babbling about clean rooms already. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.