While Office 12, Microsoft’s next-generation desktop suite, is not expected to hit Beta 1 until later this fall, Microsoft officials are set to show off a number of its components at the company’s annual Professional Developers Conference in mid-September. Recent developer conferences have focused almost exclusively on operating system and tools futures. But this year’s will include dozens of tracks aimed at Office developers and users.
I’ll beLIEve it when I see it. I’ll admit that Office 2000 had some nice additions from office 97, and Office 97 was HUGE improvement from Office 95. In office XP I saw _no_ improvements or at least non that the average business user will use over 2000. Then finally Office 2003 came around and M$ revamped the Outlook PST file (FINALLY!!!!), but I stll didn’t notice any other improvement (that people would use) other than a change in ‘skin.’ Oh! Wait… There was ONE big improvement…. Clippy was toned down — not gone, but toned down!!! (also something that got me excited).
I’m not getting overly excited about this next release of office. Previous version have proven to be a BIG upset in regards to additional ‘functionality.’
I will say that I am getting excited about OpenOffice 2. I’ve seen some very significant improvements from vers. one — kudos to everyone working on it!
In my opinion, smart tags is the most important feature ever implemented into Office, which came about in OfficeXP.
But, that’s just me.
Just like anything else by Microsoft, Office 12 is too little too late. Open Office has already become so popular that there people won’t go back to inferior Microsoft software and spend money for it when they already have an excellent Office suite that’s free and continuously improves.
How can you be so ignorant? Sure, I like OSS and dislike that MS has a monopoly on the OS and Office market, but from this to go as far as to say that their office suite is inferior is just a lousy atempt to troll.
Have you even tried, for example, the more advanced features found in Excel 2003? OOo is approaching v2 FINAL and will be a great office suite for the price (free), but that doesn’t make MS Office inferior. MS’ Office suite is a solid product, the only thing I dislike about it is that they don’t use open formats.
Keep it real!
The Swede
Agreed.
Resource usage wise, Microsoft office is by far better than OpenOffice.
But nothing can compete with freedom.
Agreed.
Resource usage wise, Microsoft office is by far better than OpenOffice.
That depends on what resources you are talking about.
OpenOffice usually creates much smaller file sizes for your data. This can be quite important if you need to carry information with you on e.g. a memory stick, but as for memory and processor consumption you are probably right.
However, on modern hardware neiter MS-Office nor OpenOffice would be a problem with respect to memory or cpu.
The file size issue will be remedied with the new default XML formats. .doc and, IIRC, the current XML formats don’t use compression. The new ones do.
The open format issue was taken care of with the XML formats in Office 2003, however, the formats in Office 12 will be the default instead of .doc, and offered downlevel to Office 2000/XP/2003 clients as well.
Just because the new Office file formats are in XML does not make them truely “open”. What Microsoft will end up doing is make it legally impossible for any software written under a free or opensource license to read or save to their copyrighted format. Microsoft now can tout its interoperable format to those guilible enough to listen. Fortunately the state of Massachusetts saw right through it.
Microsoft is now rightly pissed off at the state of Massachusetts: http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170700…
Best quotes of the article:
Microsoft’s Yates said the company agrees with the adoption of XML but does not agree that the solution to “public records management is to force a single, less functional document format on all state agencies.”
“The proposed policy is inconsistent with ongoing dialogues Microsoft is having with other Massachusetts state agencies about how Microsoft products can best meet their data and records requirements for a variety of data types – ranging from traditional documents to pictures, audio, video, voice, voice-over-IP, data, database schema, web pages, and XML information,” Yates said. “As we look to the future, and all of these data types become increasingly intertwined, locked-in formats like OpenDocument are not well suited to address these varying data types – as the proposed policy itself acknowledges. It’s this need for choice and flexibility that led Microsoft to design Office in a way that supports any XML schemas that a customer chooses, a capability lacking in less functional formats.”
Regardless of Microsoft’s argument, it does not appear the state will budge this time. Kriss said the state has completed several migrations that involve both proprietary and open source products and he does not anticipate any major costs that would adversely impact taxpayers. “We have gone through extensive review and we believe were the best at understanding our own needs,” Kriss said. “Microsoft is free to express opinions about the technology value but for our needs the document outlines what we believe. “
The issue with the Office XML formats and using them via free/open source (mainly GPL) software has been discussed before. The license for the new formats will be similar to the one for the current formats. They can be used with GPL software, but not directly as the formats include their own license that must be distributed and adhered to.
The state of Massachusetts is going to waste a lot of money and probably find their transition suboptimal just as others have.
Actually, the so-called XML-based file format of Office 2003 are not the same as the ones that will be implemented in MS Office 12. They have nothing to do within each other, so you’re locked into a situation where MS uses one different technology / file wrapping method per office release….
Even if the new XML office formats were fully compatible between MS-Office releaces, it seams that they leave out MS-Offic 97 usrs. This version is still frequently used in many companies, and I expect it to remain that way for several years to come. If the Office 97 users havent found a business case for upgrading by now, they are not likely to upgrade to MS-Office 12 either.
To some extent, Microsoft faces the same problem getting new products out onto the market as OpeoOffice.org. The software allready in use fully fill the needs of the users.
Sure, you could add new and useful inventions but at some point the cost of licence upgrade, installation, integration with other software, testing and training is so high that it outweigh the benefits of the new invention.
The broke IT bubble of year 2000, have made management much more aware of this kind of issues, ubgrades are no longer something you do out of the belief in new technology but something you need hard business facts to support.
I didn’t say that both formats were the same. I said that the new XML formats would have similar, if not the same, licensing terms as the current formats, which are royalty-free. There is no lock-in. The current XML formats do not require MS Office to view or edit. Many businesses use third-party tools or custom solutions to create/manipulate the current XML formats without MS Office.The main differences between the current XML formats and the ones in Office 12 are that:
XML will be the default format in Office 12
The new formats will save individual document elements (dlls, images, page/item relationships, etc.) as individual files within a zip container rather than embedded in the XML document, making it easier to programatically manipulate various items.
To n4cer: you are right about this. In fact, the Office 12 file formats are utterly copied from Open Document, the new OASIS filr format. But the license applying to the XML schemas is the same one that applies to today’s MS Office XML schemas, and it’s definitely not an open one…
Once again, Microsoft pulls away from the spaghetti-code infested Open Office. Open source is fine on the server. But it can’t compete with Microsoft on the desktop
Yeah, right. You mean Microsoft defies the desktop.
Yeah, we all know that the licence under which the program is distributed has everything to do with it’s ability to compete on the desktop.
Completly out of topic, but I’ve realised that the best way to get banned by negative points is by posting first and something like M$oft stinks, or LiNuX’s best.. Just wait for 50 posts, you won’t get out.
This seems to be the case with many desktop applications. On one hand, you’ve got a choice between the the (usually) superior (as in functionality propietary offering vs the less feature-rich, open source one. The thing for the OSS community to do is to get their stuff up to the same level as the propietary offerings so that people wouldn’t have to choose between freedom and functionality. Looks like Massachusetts has chosen the freedom route, and Godspeed to them. I hope they can pull it off.
How about you do a comparison in a year when Office 12 is released. I’m sure there will be absolutely no compelling reason to choose Microsoft over OpenOffice.
” Looks like Massachusetts has chosen the freedom route, and Godspeed to them. I hope they can pull it off.”
They have no choice but to pull it off. They should have considered the option of failure before they set all the bridges on fire. They better pray they did the right thing.
With an implementation date of January 1, 2007 OO 2.0 or even a point release should be out.
Does it do OpenDocument format? Can it read & save to Opendocument format natively and by default?
It fails miserably for functionality and interoperability if it doesn’t do OASIS OpenDocument format.
“It’s this need for choice and flexibility that led Microsoft to design Office in a way that supports any XML schemas that a customer chooses, a capability lacking in less functional formats.”
Rubbish, Microsoft.
If you just made the format open, no worries, everyone might have used it.
Forbidding implementation by GPL programs and trying to charge RAND fees means that your format is not open.
When a government says it wants an open format, it means open.
Don’t go crying that they didn’t chose your format when you refused to produce one which missed out in the most fundamental way on what was required – openness.
It’s not MS’ fault that virtually all non-GPL technology is “incompatible” with the GPL. The current formats are open, as will be the Office 12 (and XPS) formats.
They could be used indirectly with GPL apps or you could use the OASIS (or other) schemas within Word 2003 to output those formats rather than the MS ones.
>>It’s not MS’ fault that virtually all non-GPL technology is “incompatible” with the GPL.<<
Yes it is. MA asked for an “Open” format. MS failed to provide one. MS could have made their formats open, but they chose not to. Therefore, MS made their own format ineligible.
>>The current formats are open, as will be the Office 12 (and XPS) formats.<<
Not they are not open. They are not properly documented, they include proprietary binary pieces which are not disclosed, MS has patented parts of it, and will only allow implementations according to a set of “RAND” terms which are reasonable only to Microsoft and not at all non-discriminatory since the terms do indeed discriminate against certain parties.
Microsoft’s XML schemas are most decidedly not open. Not one bit. Not even close.
Therefore, Microsoft’s XML schemas do not meet MA’s fundamental requirement.
And because MS will not comply to open standards, they have opted to loose out on business strategy. Once MA migrates over and other states follow suit, MS will have no choice but to comply to open standards or sink. They have always tooted their own horn saying that their products have been the “Standard”, but it looks as though they were wrong. Its happening all over the world too. In fact, the USA seems to have been falling behind in standardized document formats and other standards because, primarily, MS. Good to see the USA starting to catch up to the rest of the world.
They are documented. There’s an SDk that includes the documentation and schemas. The binary pieces are base64 encoded images and possibly vba code blocks that had no other representation in the current formats. Instead of including seperate pieces, they encoded it as you would in an email or similar. This is what the Offic 12 formats “fix”. They now just save images and other binary items as binaries and package them as individual files in a zip container rather than encoding them directly in the XML.
The RAND terms are basically — include the license that they are distributed under. Almost any other non-GPLed technology would have the same usage issues with GPL software. It has been worked around before. Why is the situation somehow different with MS? GPL-“compatibility” is not a requirement for a technology to be open.
They are not documented. The zip file arrangement is OpenDocument (AFAIK), not Office 12 schemas. Microsoft is definately pulling a PR trick also when it talks about VOIP in a document – if it is in a document how can it be “over IP”? Nonsense.
The RAND terms are basically — not open. “Open” means “anyone can implement”. “Open” is all about interoperability and competition. “Open” means anyone can implement.
Microsofts term’s – are all about pay Microsoft if you want to implement. They are all about certain parties may not implement. They are all about certain portions of the format remain hidden – Microsoft trade secrets. They are all about protecting Microsoft’s continued ability to lock users in.
So MA had two proposals to consider for their request for an “Open Document format”. One proposal was open, the other was not. OK, which one to choose for an open document format?
Well der. The open one.
Guess what? Microsoft is perfectly free to implement OpenDocument format in Office if they choose to do so. Do you know why? It is because OpenDocument format is open.
Well der again.
Office 12 schemas are not even final yet. I’m talking about the current formats. MS has said the Office 12 formats will be released under a similar license as the current ones (looking book — they say the same license).
The Office 12 formats also use a zip container. Check what’s been released so far.
Again, you can use the OASIS format from Office 2003 now by using its schema. You can also use the current MS XML formats which are open and documented. The lcense is perpetual, without fee and royalty-free. They give you license to necessary patents as long as your implementation includes the license documents, but does not give you the right to sublicense or transfer the rights given under the license.
Later, you’ll also have the option of the new MS XML formats (Office and XPS) as well.
Either way, MA is wasting money with this transition as their current tool (MS Office) can handle both MS and OASIS formats.
MS has a right to release their formats under a non-GPL license. The GPL cannot usurp MS’ technology. Similar licensing issues are handled with other technologies simply by using a license-compatible “bridge” to link with GPL software. The same could be done here.
Documentation:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/default.mspx
Licensing Details:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseoverview.mspx
Office 12 format details:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/default.mspx
http://download.microsoft.com/download/c/2/9/c2935f83-1a10-4e4a-a13…
MS has a right to release their formats under a non-GPL license. The GPL cannot usurp MS’ technology. Similar licensing issues are handled with other technologies simply by using a license-compatible “bridge” to link with GPL software. The same could be done here.
Actually OOo is or will be LGPL by the time MS-Office 12 gets out. This means that it is possible for e.g. Microsoft to link with OOo libraries and still keep their current licensing. However the Microsoft RAND stuff still excludes OOo from being compatible out of the box as the Microsoft licesnce doesn’t allow for sublicensing.
“MS has a right to release their formats under a non-GPL license.”
Of course Microsoft have such a right – they are Microsofts formats. That is a given.
… but MA asked for submissions for an Open Document format. Microsoft submitted a format that was not open.
Please do not try the furphy about the GPL. MA were not after GPL software, or non-GPL software or any other type of software. They asked for submissions for an open document format.
Microsoft XML and OASIS OpenDocument XML were the two formats submitted. The former was not open, the latter was – so there was only one submission that met the criteria that MA asked for.
“MS has a right to release their formats under a non-GPL license.” ==> Yes, absolutely, without question, Microsoft has that right.
But then again, MA also has a right not to choose that format as the MA open document format when it was not open.
This issue has almost nothing to do with the GPL, other than Microsoft deigned to offer their XML format under a license which excluded someone else (not Microsoft themselves) from making a GPL implementation – and that very act was and is the primary reason why Microsoft’s formats are not open.
I’ll try to put it into symbolic form for you, since you are obviously finding it hard to understand:
Not everyone can use it == not open.
Open == everyone can use it, free of encumberances.
Open <> Microsoft PR claims it is open.
(Actually I really think that you understand perfectly and it is just your job as a team99 person to try & confuse the issue and pretend that Microsoft are not at fault here).
Open does not mean that the format is usable at the expense of IP. GPL is the odd license that requires this (and pushes the falsehood that anything not “GPL-compatible” is not open). Most other licenses do not.
“Open does not mean that the format is usable at the expense of IP. GPL is the odd license that requires this (and pushes the falsehood that anything not ‘GPL-compatible’ is not open). Most other licenses do not.”
Au contraire, anything that is not “GPL-compatible” (in the sense that a GPL implementation is not allowed) is indeed not open.
More broadly – anything that says “this or that type of implementation is not allowed” is not open.
You perhaps need to draw a distinction between the format and the software that implements it. Opening the format does not ‘give away IP’ in the software that implements it. Further – there isn’t really any ‘IP’ in a format standard anyway – a format standard simply documents that ‘this type of information is encoded/stored in this way’.
Take the ASCII character codeset as an example: ASCII is an open standard (anyone may use it without encumberances). MSDOS, which is an operating system that uses the ASCII standard, is not an open software product – it is closed source & proprietary. FreeDOS, which is an operating system that uses the ASCII standard, is an open software product (anyone may use it without encumberances).
Therefore, extrapolating that example to the office files format issue, it is entirely possible for Microsoft to have produced an open office files format (anyone may use it without encumberances) without selling the farm of their IP in the proprietary Office software product itself.
Microsoft chose not to offer an open format (when asked if they could submit an open format for consideration) and so they made their format ineligible for consideration.
The various MPEG standards, DVD, etc, are open formats, but they are not GPL-compatible because they have attached IP that must be licensed in order to provide a legal implementation. MPEG-4 also charges usage fees. By comparison, there are no fees for the Office XML formats. The license is less restrictive than formats like the MPEG ones.
Open is not defined by GPL-compatibility and traditionally never has been. There are those who would like to change this simply because in choosing the GPL, you bar yourself from direcly using a number of technologies, open and proprietary, due either to fees involved in licensing such technologies (and an unwillingness by some to pay for the license) or the licenses that are attached to such technologies (that goes against some people’s desire to work with the technology using a non-GPL license) even if the technologies themselves are free to use.
Therefore, extrapolating that example to the office files format issue, it is entirely possible for Microsoft to have produced an open office files format (anyone may use it without encumberances) without selling the farm of their IP in the proprietary Office software product itself.
They did exactly that. The IP is for the formats themselves. A patent license is included. What is not included is the right to sublicense anything given to you under the terms of the license. GPL projects could use the formats as long as they distribute the implementation under the license given and not re-license it under the GPL. Relicensing it under the GPL is not necessary to use an implementation.
Other license should not be forced to conform around the GPL. The GPL should make allowances for other licenses as this is not an issue unique to Microsoft.
“The IP is for the formats themselves. A patent license is included. What is not included is the right to sublicense anything given to you under the terms of the license. GPL projects could use the formats as long as they distribute the implementation under the license given and not re-license it under the GPL. Relicensing it under the GPL is not necessary to use an implementation.”
Rubbish. Utter rubbish. There is no “IP” in a format. XML is in wide use. Wordprocessors are in wide use. Every wordprocessor saves documents as files. There is absolutely nothing innovative in a format specification: “my XML wordprocessor files format uses this tag for that type of information”. No patent can apply here – way too much prior art.
The only type of “IP” that can sensibly apply to a format specification is copyright. It is not open if it is restricted to some parties by copyrights.
‘GPL compatible’ is not the issue – openness is the issue.
You seem to have a weird idea that openness just means “documented”. It doesn’t. Openness means “unencumbered for use”.
“Other license should not be forced to conform around the GPL. The GPL should make allowances for other licenses as this is not an issue unique to Microsoft.”
This is yet another time you get it backwards. No-one is forcing anyone to license anything in any particular way.
Indeed, this is not an issue for Microsoft. They may chose any license they please. If they choose any type of restricted license – that is just fine … it is also not open.
BUT (and this is the biggy that you repeatedly ignore) … if someone wants to decide on an open format – then formats that are encumbered do not meet their criteria.
Microsoft cannot choose an encumbered license and then cry & complain that someone else did not choose to use it, because it was encumbered, when they were after an open license.
How are the formats encumbered if there are no fees, no royalties, the license is perpetual, and license to any patent claims existing, pending, or that may exist in the future is given as long as you include the text of said license with your implementation and adhere to the reference specification?
Most formats/technologies currently considered “open” are a lot more encumbered than these. If someone were deciding on an open format, having to distribute a license with an implementation that creates or manipulates the formats is not something that’s out of the ordinary.
WRT being encumbered, OOo is probably more encumbered now in having an unlicensed .doc importer/exporter. With the XML formats, they’d have a free, legal path to compatibility.
“WRT being encumbered, OOo is probably more encumbered now in having an unlicensed .doc importer/exporter. With the XML formats, they’d have a free, legal path to compatibility.”
Is there a patent or copyright on the Microsoft .doc formats? Interesting, I didn’t know that – considering the formats are not documented, exactly what is the patent or copyright for?
I’m wondering if Word’s import/export filter for WordPerfect format files is similarly “unlicensed”?
You do talk a whole load of nonsense n4cer. If your job as a team99 member is to obfuscate & spread disinformation – you aren’t terribly good at it.
I’m not a Team99 member or an MS Employee. Funny how my “disinformation” is backed up with links to the documents showing that the MS format is open, but your claims such as the license saying you can’t use a certain development model is nowhere to be found.
.doc doesn’t have to be publicly documented for there to be patents that apply to it. If this is the case, as I said, OOo is already encumbered (unless Sun’s cross-license allows for it that is). WRT MS’ supporting WP conversion, how do you know that 1)WP has patents on the format, 2)MS doesn’t have a cross-license with the makers of WP. There were also a lot less legal obstacles to reverse engineering at the time it was made.
“‘m not a Team99 member or an MS Employee. Funny how my “disinformation” is backed up with links to the documents showing that the MS format is open, but your claims such as the license saying you can’t use a certain development model is nowhere to be found. ”
You sure act like one.
The very license pages you linked to contain the problem language of Microsofts proposed license, something along the lines of “You may not sublicense or relicense”. That means the formats may not be used by an opensource application, because the very way that opensource is developed means that others can add to the original code – means that anyone must be able to use the format without going back to Microsoft for permission.
This is a very long standing principle in any “open standard”. It is fundamental to it being a standard, and open.
There is also a huge potential problem with patent encumberance on Microsofts XML schemas, resulting in the probability that you must have Microsoft’s permission to use any tools just to acces your own document data if you save that document in a Microsoft format originally – and Microsoft will refuse to allow you to use any non-Microsoft tool.
Here, maybe this person can explain it to you, since you are obviously a very very slow Microsoft fanboy who has trouble following the simplest of things.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/why-opendocument-won.html
There is zero issue with patent encumberence any more than there is with PDF. The patent rights given and the circumstances under which they are given are virtually the same.
1) Open Source does not equal GPL (and even GPL applications are not excluded). There are other open sources licenses that could be used wouldn’t issue any additional rights over those provided by MS.
2)The license refers to the implementation of the format importer/exporter. That code alone could be licensed seperately under the MS license while the rest of the project code is licensed under GPL.
The link you included is inaccurate as is the eWeek article it links to. Again, the licenses make no reference to the implementor.
Hit the submit button accidentally…. (continued)
But Richard Stallman of Boston, president of the Free Software Foundation and the author of the GPL, dismissed any benefit to the open-source and free-software community from the move. The conditions imposed by the current license were “designed to prohibit all free software. It covers only code that implements, precisely, the Microsoft formats, which means that a program under this license does not permit modification,” Stallman said. — eWeek
PDF license covers exactly the same thing. They only give you rights to make an implementation that follows the spec. There is nothing new here w/ MS. It’s just a double-standard.
I’ll reply to other issues (if any) as I finish reading the link.
Microsoft XML is only available in the latest version of Office. Indeed, their licensing is carefully designed to prevent the most likely kinds of competition (it’s “free” as long as you’re not a real competitor). So to get Microsoft’s XML, you’d have to upgrade huge groups of people at a corresponding huge cost.
This is not true. Look at the licenses and tell me where there are any restrictions on selling or freely distributing an implementation other than attribution via including the licenses and following the spec.
His assertion of lack of 3rd-party support for the formats is also false. There are 3rd-parties that create, read, and manipulate the current Office XML formats without using MS Office. There will likely be an even greater market when the Office 12 and XPS specifications are finalized. There are also businesses and governments using custom internal applications that use the current Office XML formats without needing MS Office.
“There is zero issue with patent encumberence any more than there is with PDF.”
There are all sorts of people disagreeing with you.
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/2.0/index.html (look for “PDF export”)
http://wwwthep.physik.uni-mainz.de/~plass/gv/#description
http://kpdf.kde.org/
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/
http://www.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mk793652/gpdf/
Moreover – the supposed objection that Microsoft have with the OpenDocument format is that it is not built to contain binary parcels of proprietary undocumented information within the format – it is not closed! Well der, that happens to be a primary characteristic of open formats!!
The Microsoft complain that the new format is not built to support legacy formats (they actually mean legacy Microsoft formats) – yet OpenOffic supports those formats (often better than Microsoft themselves do) – yet it is able at the same time to support OpenDocument.
The very license pages you linked to contain the problem language of Microsofts proposed license, something along the lines of “You may not sublicense or relicense”. That means the formats may not be used by an opensource application, because the very way that opensource is developed means that others can add to the original code – means that anyone must be able to use the format without going back to Microsoft for permission.
The GPL and LGPL contains the same language. If the clause restricting sublicensing is problem language, the GPL/LGPL, and I suspect many other licenses have the same problem.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
8. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the Library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.html
I occasionally get email asking if I can explain how to crack a PDF file, or if I can help decrypt a PDF file. I won’t help these people because I believe that an author’s requests relating to the use of his/her work should be honored.
I distribute source code (for Xpdf) under a particular license (the GPL) which depends entirely on users’ goodwill for its effectiveness. If any of my users ever decided to violate the license, I would probably never even know about it, much less be able to do anything about it. The only thing I can do is trust the users.
In light of this, it would be very hypocritical of me to, on one hand, ask people to honor my licensing restrictions, and, on the other hand, bypass (or assist others in bypassing) another author’s requested restrictions.
In addition to all of this, Adobe requires that implementors of the PDF spec adhere to the document permissions.
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html
The line about hypocrisy is especially interesting because this is what the “patent expert” in the eWeek article and other GPL advocates were promoting in the case of the MS XML formats (i.e., to not honor MS’ license). This also blows Stallman’s case about not allowing the spec to be modified out of the water. Notice Adobe’s requirement to adhere to the PDF spec? As w/ the MS XML formats, if you don’t adhere to the spec, you risk losing the license and the protections afforded under it. MA used a double-standard in removing MS technologies from their proposal while allowing and subsequently choosing PDF.
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/features/1.1/index.html
Look for “Microsoft Office Compatibility” and be sure to check out the screenshot showing that OOo has supported Office 2003 XML formats since at least version 1.1. The Office 12 formats and XPS should be no problem to support since they’ll have the same license.
“How are the formats encumbered if there are no fees, no royalties, the license is perpetual, and license to any patent claims existing, pending, or that may exist in the future is given as long as you include the text of said license with your implementation and adhere to the reference specification?”
The formats are encumbered by saying “this type of development approach may not be used to implement this format”.
Where else is there any such a restriction? Does ASCII code have such a restriction? FM broadcast? Ethernet protocols? HTML? CSS? W3C standards? Steering wheels & gear change columns used in cars? NTSC television transmission standards? EBCDIC? Hollerith cards? VHS tape? IDE interface? USB interface? PS/2 interface? RS232C interface standards? RS422/485 interface standards? IEEE 802b (?) ethernet standards? FTP protocol standard? DNS standards?
With all of the examples, any supplier may implement support for the standard in their product free of encumberances in doing so. In order to implement such support for those standards, one does not need permission from the originators of the standard.
Those are therefore all open standards.
Microsoft’s proposed XML formats for Office files are not open.
Microsoft’s proposed XML formats for Office files are open.
To some, the exceptions to the ‘royalty-free license … 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’ are problematic, as are the terms of use,” said the Commonwealth.
Alan Yates, Microsoft’s general manager of Information Worker business strategy, criticised the Massachusetts proposal, saying it was “confusing”. It uses different criteria for openness for office documents, data and Adobe PDF files, he told ZDNet UK’s sister site CNET News.com last Thursday.
“We were surprised by the narrowing of the approach to openness,” Yates said. “There are many other different options that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has here that many other countries and states are doing.”
— ZD
Yates was right concerning the narrowing definition for open. If he’s wrong, why did MA accept PDF even though Adobe asserts similar “exceptions” (which aren’t really exceptions — it attempts to ensure compatibility by having licensees stick to the reference specs)?
Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification:
U.S. Patent Numbers:
• 5,634,064
• 5,737,599
• 5,781,785
• 5,819,301
• 6,028,583
• 6,289,364
• 6,421,460
In addition, the following patent is licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for its term and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces PDF files that are compliant with the Specification (specifically excluding, however, software that consumes and/or interprets PDF files):
U.S. Patent Number:
• 5,860,074
http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/support/topic_legal_noti…
The formats are encumbered by saying “this type of development approach may not be used to implement this format”.
MS’ licenses make no mention of particular development methodologies — only that implementations include their license text. This is no different from many other licenses.
Microsoft’s proposed XML formats for Office files are not open.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39216391,00.h…
Microsoft’s proposed XML formats for Office files are not open.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/09/06/0345224.shtml?tid=155&tid=185
Microsoft’s proposed XML formats for Office files are not open.
“Yates reiterated the Microsoft does not intend to natively support the OpenDocument format, which he said was very specific to the OpenOffice.org 2.0 open source productivity suite.”
Wrong. Dead wrong:
Applications supporting OpenDocument
* Abiword 2.3, through the OpenWriter plugin
* eZ publish 3.6, with OpenOffice extension
* Knomos case management 1.0 [3]
* KOffice 1.4, released on June 21st 2005
* OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 and 2.0 beta
* Scribus 1.2.2, imports OpenDocument Text and Graphics
* TextMaker 2005 beta [4]
Also I believe StarOffice.
Refer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument