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."
Re:Fully off topic, but... (Score:0, Interesting)
Dont be such a jackarse
DOC format question (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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".
I'm sure this all makes sense to lawyers... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:What Open (Score:3, Interesting)
Just hoping... (Score:1, Interesting)
To hell with Microsoft and their proprietary standards, software dripping with overfeaturitis that most people will never use, let alone understand, and -- oh yes -- the big price tag. Not to mention the Big Barn Door for macro virii and the like.
For $$$$$, you can have all that and more with Microsoft products. Or for free you can have products that can just get the damn work done already.
Microsoft reminds me of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation from Hitchhicker's Guide -- the whole lot of them will be up against the wall when the Linux Revolution comes!!!!
And speaking of formats... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
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: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:Hey thanks (Score:2, Interesting)
Being an open stadard, it cannot be copyrighted. However, tools built with XML can. Copyrighting just the XML in a tool has yet to be shown as an enforceable copyright but that doesn't stop them from attempting to say it is enforceable.
You can write anything on paper but it still doesn't make it true.
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, type in "abcdefg", save the file as "abcdefg.DOC", then open up "abcdefg.DOC" with NOTEPAD.EXE.
Guess what? NOTEPAD.EXE will show you that your data, the string "abcdefg" is there in the file just as it ought to be.
There is no loss of data when using WINWORD.EXE; rather, there is a gain of typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] structure that other typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] programs might not be able to understand.
Microsoft owns the rights to their own proprietary typesetting [or markup, or "formatting"] algorithms, but they make absolutely no claims whatsoever on the underlying data that those algorithms act upon.
If you don't like Microsoft's typesetting algorithms, then use Corel's [WordPerfect], or IBM's [Lotus Word Pro], or Apple's [iWork], or hell, even Donald Knuth's.
And after you've tried those other proprietary algorithms, ask yourself whether Microsoft's proprietary typesetting algorithms failed to offer you any value for your money.
Besides, even if none of what I've said is true, you can still always take your ".DOC" documents, open them in WINWORD.EXE, and click on "File | Save As... | Save as type | Text Only (*.txt)" and never have to deal with Microsoft for the remainder of the life of your data.
Legality of Propietary Standards? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why is so hard to drop MSOfifce? (Score:2, Interesting)
How exactly are you going about doing that? I've been trying to find a Free/OSS implementation of a program that does that, but can't. They are all either commercial programs or require the use of Windows and the MS Word viewer.
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 fully implement the schema. AFAIK, this appears to be some kind of token gesture that Microsoft has carried out in order to sell their software to the government.
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.
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:What Open (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Why is so hard to drop MSOfifce? (Score:5, Interesting)