![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Politics Politics](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/politics_64.png)
Microsoft Partially Opens Proprietary XML Format 369
eschasi writes "Groklaw has an article up
reporting that Microsoft
is going to open up their XML representation of the DOC format in response to Massachusetts' demand for
open formats. According to Groklaw there are some interesting caveats involved in the move. From the license: 'We are acknowledging that end users who merely open and read government documents that are saved as Office XML files within software programs will not violate the license'. While opening up the format even partially is a good idea, it's still a far cry from folks being able to write programs that create DOC-compatible files."
Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opening? (Score:5, Interesting)
The best word is "tip" as in the tip of the wedge. Someone somewhere will need to fill out a government form and send it back. The file will be opened to be exported. It will be exported to an open format. The Government will need to open the document. This will either cause the demand for open format support in government by using 3rd party software or Microsoft in order to keep the applications will have to change to meed the consumer requirements to fully support open formats. Tip of the wedge is the best description. The tip is in place. Now the pressure mounts. Let's see what gives next.
Re:Opening? (Score:2)
But it might be sufficient:
open the document, then save it to another format that is not encumbered by M$ patents.
Re:Opening? (Score:3, Informative)
Q. Are the licenses that Microsoft offers under the Open and Royalty-Free Office 2003 XML Reference Schema program perpetual in nature?
A. Yes. The licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas are perpetual. There is no term limit on the licenses.
Q. Can the licenses for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas be used by open source developers?
A. Yes. Open source developers who wish to participate in a community development project can enter into the agreement
Proprietary XML? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:5, Funny)
Small typos like that get passed around in memos and next thing you know, you have patents for numerous things.
Re:Off-Topic but curious (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:3, Interesting)
Be damned if I know what proprietary has to do with it being humanly readable. Leave it to slashdot readers to think Xml has much to do with open source because you can "look at it".
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course given enough word docs you could probably figure out the schema...but they have a patent on it.
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only benefit to them of XML being commonly associated with public standards is PR.
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:3, Informative)
XML is a markup language, not a language for serializing data structures. The two are not the same: most of XML is completely unnecessary for serializing data structures, so something much simpler would do, while at the same time, XML lacks primitives for common data structures found in real programming languages. That makes XML a really poor choice f
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is the case, why doesn't Microsoft publish the XML schema and allow any other application to read and write to those XML files on the conditions that they
The most important is reading... (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to own data was lost with closed format, since it did require a license to read something you might have produced yourself. For a private person, it might be sad. For a corporate needy of its archives of past correspondance, it can be catastrofal. That microsoft opens up their format for reading, and specifies parts of it, makes it possible to write software to convert this data to a open format, or index it and such. Therefor, we can still save in MS format, but have much-less tie in.
I'm only wondering how far it goes, if it goes as far as to say that I'm allowed to make a non-MS certified opensourced bot that crawls my disk, and indexes office XML files... And what if a corporate does so, will they be allowed?
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
Is catastrofal a perfectly cromulent word?
In English the word is catastrophic.
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
You required the license to create it in that format. I don't see how this is problematic.
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. Take this scenario:
<MS user>Here, take this Word DOC [of something important]
<Linux geek>Can't open it. Convert it to something I can read.
<MS user>Uh, it will open properly in Open Office [due to the article] now, try that.
<Linux geek>Uh, well [speak microsoft badness]. Can you convert it...
<MS User>No. My Word DOC file is multi-platform compatible now, there is no need for me to convert i
You never lost the right to your data ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You never lost the right to your data, you could always output your data into something else. Text, RTF if you wanted to preserve formatting. RTF's specification and a sample reader are published by Microsoft, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url =
You're using the word "data" incorrectly. (Score:3, Interesting)
This at least gives us the right to our own data back, since we can then convert it to a more useable format...
That microsoft opens up their format for reading, and specifies parts of it, makes it possible to write software to convert this data to a open format, or index it and such. Therefor, we can still save in MS format, but have much-less tie in.
You seem to be under the impression that ".DOC" documents use something other than eight bit ASCII characters to store data. Try this: Open up WINWORD.EXE
Interesting Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that the ability for a citizen to read and access government documents should surpass all other interests, regardless of licensing issues. In other words, even if a government employee was boneheaded enough to save a document in a proprietary format, my ability access to the information in that document should be guaranteed no matter what, licenses be damned.
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:2)
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:2)
I was interested in looking up some publicly available information held by my state government. They even had a website that told me what microfilm it was stored on. However, to see the microfilm I had to either travel 100 miles to the capital or pay an exorbitant copying fee.
Should California residenets be required to travel to a Washington DC reading room to read some important regulatory document, or use MS Word?
Even if technically there is
Re:Interesting Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
It is exactly that type of thinking that was the argument against the Bill of Rights - that enumerating them would cause people to think that the amendments granted the rights as opposed to simply recognized them.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which
Sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
So what ... (Score:2)
Patent law does not work, IMHO, because XML has been around for ages.
Re:So what ... (Score:2)
has embraced/extended/extinguished the meaning
of the word "open" (as in "open" standard).
MSFT would like the public to believe that they
own/invented the XML standard -- but what they
really did was embrace/extend/patent(/extinguish)
what was an open standard with open specifications
and close the standard. Any/all governments all
over the world should take note of Microsoft's
continued monopolistic behaviour, and punish them
in the only manner MSFT can comprehend --
Re:So what ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So what ... (Score:2)
a usefull start (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as i would love them to be made to play fair and open the format fully
Opening it enough to make it easy to parse gives us all we need incase of the disapearence of word , or MS trying to force an upgrade by breaking compatability in some way.
Not so useful as all that, methinks. (Score:2)
DOC format question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DOC format question (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, if that were true, you'd think OpenOffice, an app that threaten's one of MS's actual monopolies, would have been ceased and desisted by now.
Hopefully Governments will force this further (Score:5, Interesting)
Equally this still presents a roblem for QUANGOS. Non government organisations that perform the delegated work of governments will not be able to produce doccuments without restriction on which programs can read them. This could present huge confusion for end users who can't be expected to know where that blurry line between organisations lies.
Keep DOC closed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep DOC closed (Score:5, Insightful)
oh no! (Score:2)
XML patented by microsoft? (Score:3)
Can someone explain (I'm not trolling here) how the heck did M$ manage to shove a patent in on a public format that's been around for ages?
Or, is it some other issue than patents this time? I mean, XML-based formats are easily hackable, so M$ doesn't really need to spec it for you to write a converter, even though for a state government it would be logical to ask for a spec.
I'm sure this all makes sense to lawyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm sure this all makes sense to lawyers... (Score:4, Informative)
That said, patents have an interesting way of working. The patent holder can prevent the USE of his/her patent, even if it's non-commercial (aka private) use. This means that if the patent holder (Microsoft) gives a patent license that says you can READ them, then it doesn't matter who created the original Word document to begin with -- Microsoft has patented the format of that document, and any use of the propritary format falls under patent law. And patent law explicitely states that even USE of such a patent can enforced by the patent holder.
The magic "EULA" that you accepted is US patent law, which applies to anyone in the United States. Just living here is the EULA.
So, in a nutshell, the creator of that document owns a copyright on that document, but the format used to create that document is patented by Microsoft, so they get to enforce that patent and anyone who did not agree to their EULA can be sued.
Of course, Microsoft doesn't really care about an individual user, but anyone writing a tool to write a file into their patented document type falls under the "distribution" clause of patents, and that company is fair game.
Re:I'm sure this all makes sense to lawyers... (Score:2)
Re:I'm sure this all makes sense to lawyers... (Score:2)
violating a patent. It is a catch 22 situation sure you can use it for whatever you want but I cannot create the tools for you to do so.
Statement Does Not Parse, ID10T Error Assumed (Score:2)
1) Partially is not open
2) Proprietary XML? Huh?
And speaking of formats... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And speaking of formats... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two different types of files for two different purposes.
Still not GPL compatible (Score:2, Informative)
The GPL does not allow any additional restrictions beyond those of the GPL. The requirement for attribution is an additional
One thing I don't get.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, I don't even see how you can patent using open standard. I mean, XML was designed as method of storing data,amoung other things. How could the patent office possibly accept a patent where XML is simply being used to do what it was designed to do?
I mean, to draw a parallel. The 110w outlet in the US is an industry standard right? I mean, everyone can make plugs and outlets royalty free and all the appliances and devices can plug into them for power. MS patenting XML to store a word processing file is like Sony patenting a TV that uses the 110w outlet, thereby blocking anyone else from doing it even though they didn't invent the outlet or the TV. The same holds true here. MS didn't invent XML, they didn't invent the word processor, nor did they invent storing a word processing file in XML. So, how in the hell can they apply for a patent on it? Just by paying money?
Re:One thing I don't get.... (Score:3)
Re:One thing I don't get.... (Score:2)
Cookies were designed to identify returning browsers so that the website could connect them with data collected about them earlier, but Amazon got a patent for using cookies to identify returning browsers so that they could be connected to data collected about them earlier.
Basically, the patent office is shit.
TWW
Re:One thing I don't get.... (Score:2)
99% open... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is 100% closed.
Why is so hard to drop MSOfifce? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, we started by enforcing the use of OpenOffice in every desktop. The process is simple, if someone want that old 450MHz Duron replaced by a new 2GHz Athlon they must use OpenOffice instead of MSOffice. Its amazing how this argument work!
Mind you that we don't forbid the installation of MSOffice on this new machines. No sir, anyone can BUY and DONATE the licente to the city, so the software can be installed legaly on the computer. Heh, imagine how often it happens!
The next step was to replace Lotus Notes (argh!) with PostFix + Cyrus running on Debian, and installing ThunderBird on every desktop. Most users just loved the change, because the Lotus Notes Client realy suck.
To add an nice touch, every DOC file that pass trough the email system is converted into a PDF, for tha sake of virus-prevention... The only way to pass an editable document thought is to use OpenOffice native format!
One day, I dream of substitute all W2k desktops with Ubuntu Hoary... and tell its just a new version of WindowsXP. With most of the users already using OpenOffice, ThunderBird and Firefox I gess none of the users will notice the change!
Re:Why is so hard to drop MSOfifce? (Score:5, Interesting)
One big non-issue here (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent should be rejected (Score:4, Interesting)
This patent seems to be on the arragement of data, if that arangement was chosen so a specific process can work on the data then patent that process with the data arangement, if not then this patent is for one thing and one thing only, anti-competitive behaviour, and as such shouln't be granted.
May not be GPL compatible (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to say, but I'd read this to say that I can write GPL'd software, but anybody who wants to create a derivative work. would have to go the Microsoft web site and agree to the license.
This is probably splitting hairs, but unless the format is released into the public domain or into an open licensed format, there is nothing that says Microsoft couldn't change their mind later and stop granting licneses. My license may be perpetual, but anyone who doesn't make it in the gate may be out of luck.
Furthermore, this might allow Microsft to halt distribution of GPL'd implementations of their formats to people using the program for non-government purposes. Note this clarification:
So, you can distribute your OpenOffice filter to people, but presumably only under the condition that they use it to read government documents.
this goes to show that MS is scared of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft Wins Again! (Score:3, Interesting)
Decision makers who don't care about the nuances of open standards or this issue, will put a check mark next to Open Standards in their features matrix.
Meanwhile, MS develops MSXML solutions to extend their reach into lucrative corporate markets now populated by small companies.
Don't mod me down (again) for the following, because this is the harsh reality.
Alternative office suites may be able to read and write M$ XML all they want some day. Microsoft simply doesn't care because they aren't a real threat to their bottom line. *No* Office application competitor redefines the broad market or adds new overwhelming feature/value to the broad Office applications market. Period. You can imagine what MS would do if such a thing existed.
Re:Fully off topic, but... (Score:2)
Re:Fully off topic, but... (Score:3, Informative)
-Jesse
Re:Fully off topic, but... (Score:2)
Re:Fully off topic, but... (Score:2)
-Jesse
Re:What Open (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Open (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What Open (Score:4, Informative)
If MSFT can't close the document format and any program can correctly read/write documents in the way they were intended what advantage does MSFT have.
That's why MSFT doesn't want this and everyone else does.
Re:What Open (Score:2)
Microsoft Word has other features besides an exclusive file format, you know.
Re:What Open (Score:2, Funny)
now if i could only find that old copy of microsoft bob...
Re:What Open (Score:2)
I have no problems with Word and I think it works just fine (better than OO, Abiword, etc) but I think that the reason it became so popular was the close file format.
Re:What Open (Score:2)
No, while it was getting popular, I still had no problem reading and writing Word docs with good ol' ClarisWorks. (The Mac version anyway)
Re:What Open (Score:3, Insightful)
Whaaaa? Cart or horse, which comes first?
Dude, Word did not get popular because of proprietary file format. Users don't give a rats ass about file format until they need to export/import from one to the other. That the file format is commonly used is a result of the programs popularity. Word got popular for other reasons such as aggressive marketing, aggressive pricing, aggressive positioning, feature richness, useability, blah, blah.
Word and Excel formats used to be published (Score:2)
What makes you think publishing the format would hurt Microsoft, you do know that the Word and Excel formats used to be published on their website? I have no idea why they stopped but it is hardly likely to affect their word processor dominance one way or the other. FWIW, my guesses:
(1) Didn't feel
Re:What Open (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has simply left this alone because OO.o and the others aren't yet a threat. If they ever become one, you'll see the floodgates open.
DMCA does not ban Reverse Engineering! (Score:5, Informative)
Source, The text of the DMCA [loc.gov], Chapter 12, Section 1201.f (find within page for "reverse engineering")
Re:Shake the claw (Score:2)
No, governments have no place telling businesses how to operate. We need to get government out of our cozy relationships with corporations, and go it alone, human to artificial human.
Without governments, corporations don't exist. They are legal entities. So I guess I agree with you.
Re:Not enough - write Mass. Govt.! (Score:2)
You mean proper 'grammar'?
Re:Not enough - write Mass. Govt.! (Score:2)
Do as you say, not as you do?
Re:Not enough - write Mass. Govt.! (Score:5, Funny)
How about, you handle the grammar and I handle the, Spelling. "OK"
Re:Not enough - write Mass. Govt.! (Score:2)
hawk
Re:Is this just a "read-only" license? (Score:2)
Re:Is this just a "read-only" license? (Score:2)
Re:Is this just a "read-only" license? (Score:2)
Toilets (Score:5, Funny)
Toilets. I believe toilets are as ubiquitous as Microsoft Word.
Re:Toilets (Score:5, Funny)
Toilets: Total cost of ownership (Score:3, Funny)
I agree with your assessment of toilet seats being cheaper than Microsoft seat licenses but shouldn't we wait until Microsoft releases a study on the total cost of ownership between toilets and Microsoft Office?
Re:Toilets: Total cost of ownership - Ummm (Score:2)
Re:Are other companies doing this? (Score:2)
Re:XML (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with the MS implementation as I have understood it is Microsoft has used xml as transport for their proprietary DOC format, not defined their DOC structure in xml. There's a difference here. The former being the case, yes, you can get to the xml and "see" the DOC, but it is just an ascii encoded binary... so, you really get nothing more than the old proprietary stuff, AND an extra layer of obfuscation! Hardly what xml w
FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:thoughts (Score:2)
Re:thoughts (Score:2)
Re:I'll never understand some arguments (Score:2)
Microsoft has *abused* their monopoly status. So everything they do is taken very seriously as trying to do it again. And again. And again.
Yet, Microsoft is getting really boring - they never surprise me. Actually, they are getting predictable.
Re:I'll never understand some arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll never understand some arguments (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't have to. Let them keep it.
On the other hand, I want the right to participate in my country's politics without having to pay the Microsoft tax. Hence, government must use open standards.
I personally believe that government should avoid software that uses proprietary formats from the outset. Some people, however, believe otherwise, and they are lobbying for a compromise that will make it legit for government to use Microsoft sof
Re:I don't see why this matters... (Score:2)
I use openoffice, I think it's a great program. However, sometimes I receive a document and openoffice doesn't display it properly and I end up having to use word to view it. A business isn't going to want to switch to openoffice until issues like this are reso
WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
However, the documents are licensed under very permissive terms-- see the W3C Document License [w3.org].
See the W3 IPR FAQ [w3.org]:
2. Who holds the copyright on W3C documents?
Th