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)
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?
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.
Sneaky (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What Open (Score:2, Insightful)
The more time goes by... (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at what's happening in Europe - Microsoft is trying to retain its essential closed nature by offering outrageous license fees etc in return for its code. But the EU isn't accepting that. It's demanding full compliance with its rulings if Microsoft wants to be able to sell to the European market.
And here we have the MA locals asking for open formats and, to some extent at least, getting it.
Microsoft correctly identified in The Halloween Document that the problem is the Open Source/Free Software movement, not really the software that's coming out of it. If it can kill the movement and the method, then proprietary software is what is left. It's starting to look like the movement is making significant progress.
One last point in this ramble, the goal of the movement has never been to "kill microsoft", just to make it play fair with everyone else. We don't need their code, just a few pieces of information to make things interoperable. It looks like the political scene is starting to see this as desirable. May competition go forth and the best product for a specific job be declared the best!
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.
Keep DOC closed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Keep DOC closed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll never understand some arguments (Score:1, Insightful)
That's like saying I built a really cool house, everyone likes the house, everyone wishes they could have a house as cool as mine. Because everyone likes it I should be obligated to let everyone in, let everyone use it when they like. I should have to (in addition of having the building plans on file publicly) give room layouts with furniture, decorations and everything. Did I ever expand the functionality of my house by finishing the basement? Gotta let everyone have that too! I have a monopoly on my house (it being mine and all) and that's not fair to all my neighbors who have houses that aren't quite as cool.
99% open... (Score:3, Insightful)
...is 100% closed.
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.
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.
Re:Opening? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll never understand some arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:1, Insightful)
One big non-issue here (Score:3, Insightful)
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 were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.
from http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.h tm [let.rug.nl]
Re:And speaking of formats... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two different types of files for two different purposes.
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:4, 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 software.
Re:You never lost the right to your data ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Only so long as you have the right to run MS software... As the government is all for DRM/TCPA (as it allows excellent sheeple-steering), but TCPA would allow microsoft to rescind the ability to run word on future hardware, it makes sense to demand open-for-purposes-of-data-extraction-only formats.
Re:Proprietary XML? (Score:1, Insightful)
Other than laughing at the poster, I don't know.
Microsoft isn't saying XML is proprietary, they are saying their method of data storage and format using XML is proprietary; nothing wrong with that.
I don't claim that C++/Java language is now proprietary because I have written and distributed proprietary programs using those languages do I?
The simple fact is that, making your format open to anyone has consequences, one of them being integrators who do not correctly implement the standard you set forth. In other words, 3rd party software that can't read _your_ documents because of bugs / misapplications in _their_ code can, unfortunately sometimes be construed as being _your_ fault.
Re:You're using the word "data" incorrectly. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not correct... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not correct. "We" will have no right to read or write data in their format. Only "Government documents" may be read. That doesn't give most of us shit.
Re:You're using the word "data" incorrectly. (Score:2, Insightful)
this goes to show that MS is scared of OSS (Score:3, Insightful)
The crux of the issue... (Score:1, Insightful)
In the beginning this will be viewed as a problem for those using open formats. The receiver will require you to use a format that Word can handle. But as the number of open format users grows, the balance will shift, and this will increasingly be seen as a problem with Word. Ultimately, Microsoft may be forced to make use of open formats to prevent more users from shifting away. At that point, we've won.
Re:Toilets (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The most important is reading... (Score:1, Insightful)
> back, since we can then convert it to a more
> useable format
No. not at all. first this only applies to _government_documents_, and only those at MA:
"""who merely open and read government documents that are saved as Office XML files"""
but is _also_ applies control to the _document_ itself, not merely to the file. It doesn't say: 'who merely open and read the file', it says: 'who merely open and read _government_documents_ that are saved as Office XML files'.
Converting and saving the _document_ in a more useful format is more than 'merely opening and reading' and thus is prohibited.
MS are extending control from the file format to the words that are in it, even though those words are owned by someone else.
Obviously... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the courts should under no circumstances let this pass. This is a bunch of BS, and I think that unless Microsoft complies fully and delivers the complete format of the data files, they should be fined not $5,000,000 per day until they comply but $5,000,000 per day until at least 100 independant open source computer programs exist that can handle Microsoft document files in their entirety, with no major user complaints about the functionality of these programs.