International technology standards organization Ecma voted Thursday to approve the creation of a technical committee to begin looking into standardization of Microsoft Office’s Open XML document format. The effort has been backed by Apple, Intel and Toshiba. The vote to create the committee would have been unanimous, however OpenDocument supporter IBM voted against the proposal while HP abstained. Critics outside of Ecma questioned the organization’s move to standardize what they consider to be a proprietary format. Micorsoft submitted its new Office format to Ecma a few weeks ago.
Yikes. I didn’t think the decision would be so near-unanimous.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me: Are these formats ‘libre’ as well as open? In other words, even with an open spec, would developers still have to pay MS to implement software for working with it? I seem to recall reading something to that effect, back when they first started touting the ‘Open’ XML formats?
It’d be a little sad to see OpenDocument shot down in its infancy, but ultimately I can live with it, as long as the prevailing standard is free to use and reimplement.
It is only propreitary because there isn’t an open standard, which is what the vote is creating. Non-sensical complaint.
Also; Yes, the Office XML license is very open. It has two issues one can argue about:
1) Microsoft has patents on “technologies” in it, they grant irrevocable eternal rights to the patents though, but only in the context of implementing office suite file formats readers/writers. So the patent grant is too narrow to be completely open (but wide enough to be very much useful). It is interesting to note that OpenDocument had the same problem up until a few months ago (Sun issued a blanket grant when people started complaining about the patent deal in Microsofts license, quickly converting the glass house into wood before any of the rocks hit
.
2) The license includes an advertisement clause (add the string “Contains Micrsoft Office XML technology” in an about dialog) which makes it incompatible with some OSS licenses.
Those might be fixed for the standardization, but even if they aren’t the restrictions are hardly horrible. A bit annoying for OSS projects, but they can be worked around nicely (make a stand-alone OpenDocument <=> Office XML converter under a modified license to make it legal).
I know it is frowned upon to say good things about Microsoft, but it really seems to me that the Office format lock-in complaint it pretty much getting solved at this point. If this is the only thing OpenDocument achieves it is still pretty damn great.
That sounds positive, then; as long as it will be possible for OpenOffice to interoperate fully with MSOffice, then I’m happy. I’d love to see the end of the small but infuriating incompatibilities between the two suites.
They points you raise are in no way minor or “hardly horrible” for FLOSS developers. What’s more, you are forgetting some very important points:
1. at the present moment the covenant is specific to the current version of MS Office XML format: this means you’re free to implement it, but nothing would preclude MS to sue you for implementing the Office 12 (or later) format [1];
2. as a consequence of 1., moreover, the covenant applies to MS input, but it is not sure that it will apply to ECMA’s output, that is, if there are even small modifications to the final, ECMA sanctioned standard you wouldn’t be allowed to apply them, at least until the covenant is updated;
3. it nowhere says that MS would not add further, covenant-excluded extensions to its own format (and/or the ECMA output), so it would leave ample space for an embrace and extend operation on its own format by MS, de facto closing again the format; of course for the greater good of “innovation”, don’t you dare think they just might want to cut off competition;
4. the key word in the covenant is “conformant”: you won’t be sued if your implementation of the standard is “conformant” to the standard itself. Who is going to judge if it is and, possibly, give a green light to a suit for “non conformant implementation”? Microsoft perhaps? And how would that be an “open standard”?
So, as you can see, the problem is not that saying good things about Microsoft is “frowned upon”, the problem is that there are just so few good things to say about them, unless you (impersonal) happen to swallow their line, sink and everything else.
rehdon
[1] I know one MS employee wrote in his blog that the covenant would be brought up to date when Office 12 is out, but that’s only that: an entry in a blog. Which also brings to mind that the covenant itself is not a legally binding document, but only a web page, possibly subject to editing.
Even if the problems you mention were solved, the new Microsoft formats seam like a waste of time. It has taken many years for the ODF standard to evolve to where it is today. The new Office 12 format is not even implemented and have never been tested in real use.
Sure, the current Microsoft XML document format have been around for a while, but most people doesn’t use it. Today there are probably more Open/StarOffice installations using ODF than Microsoft Office users using XML. The current Microsoft XML format doesn’t cover all things covered in ODF.
The effort has been backed by Apple, Intel and Toshiba.
Apple = Microsoft
Intel = Almost Microsoft
Toshiba = New Microsoft Ally
So the Microsoft Office’s Open XML document format is neither compatible with GPL nor LGPL. Screw it! The free software community doesn’t need any half-open solutions. Although most propritary vendors and governments will be more than happy with it, which was the aim.
About Microsoft not being forced to stick to the standard: So? No one is forced to stick to the OpenDocument standard in future versions either. The format can’t enforce itself on programs, it is just a format. Can’t complain about the format not being open just because it doesn’t force people to stick to it, people being Microsoft or anyone else.
It not being compatible with the GPL is a far lesser issue than the whole format openness debate. As I noted earlier OpenDocument wasn’t actually GPL-compatible until a few months ago either. There are tons of very popular open source software that is incompatible with the GPL, it is not a big deal (or to make a real comparison; switching from Office formats because of lock-in before the XML formats seems sensile, but for most people there is very little to be gained from switching from the new Office XML formats).
Sigh… you just don’t get it. A program that’s incompatible with GPL is something entirely different from a format that’s incompatible with GPL. Software can be rewritten, formats can not (without breaking compatibility).
But I won’t excpect you to ever understand that.
The effort has been backed by Apple, Intel and Toshiba.
Even Apple is backing this? Can someone be nice enough to explain to me whats in this for Apple and why they should choose to back this effort? I can’t think of any reasons why or why not, but I thought Apple is a competitor to Microsoft and would be against it.
They may want to ensure they’ll always been an MS compatiable office suite out there for the Mac, if they can.
i believe there are two reasons:
i) Apple and MS are allies
xor
ii) Apple fear of Linux is strong that fear of MS
i believe there are two reasons:
i) Apple and MS are allies
xor
ii) Apple fear of Linux is strong that fear of MS
I think you’re closer with ii) than with i).
Apple is not an ally of Microsoft. They need a native MS Office though, if they want to have a compelling argument for the enterprise. MS needs an alternative platform they can point to and say “See? We’re not only about Windows” to keep the anti-trust types happy.
Unless the commercial software vendors decide overnight to start porting all their applications to OS X, Apple faces the same challenges as desktop linux does in the enterprise space, with the disadvantage of being locked to a proprietary hardware platform. Apple’s strengths in the consumer and enthusiast market are moot when you look at the enterprise; decision makers don’t care about the GUI, they won’t consider dual-booting as an option, they won’t consider running linux apps through a translation layer any more than they’ll consider running Windows apps through a translation layer on linux. Linux has more momentum in the enterprise space, in terms of mindshare, in terms of third-party support, in terms of legacy hardware support, etc. etc. That’s not intended as a slight against Apple, it’s simply a reality when you consider the factors businesses use when making decisions.
Having a native port of Office and being able to integrate seamlessly into an existing MS-centric infrastructure, including Exchange, tips the scales towards OS X. Depending on a company’s objectives in exploring alternatives, that could be enough of a benefit to compensate for forklifting into a new proprietary hardware and software platform. Though for company’s looking to break the MS stranglehold and explore open alternatives, it would not be.
Right now Apple needs Microsoft for relevancy in the business space (aside from their niche applications in things like DTP and digital media editing). They can compete head-on in the consumer space, but the business space operates with a completely different set of criteria.
So, in a roundabout way, I do think Apple is concerned about desktop linux and needs to support Microsoft.
Just my 2c, and if this is viewed by anyone as a troll against Apple, it’s not intended to be, so please re-read before striking back.
Apple isn’t concerned with the success or failure of MS. They have been fortunate to keep the support of software and hardware vendors. Apple may not have quite as much support as MS, but they certainly have it better than Linux, BSD, or any other OS aside from Windows. Apple has even had the support of MS with native software for OSX including Office. With that support, Apple has been able to maintain their niche market, and recently they have even been able to grow a little.
Apple probably wouldn’t be heart-broken by the failure of MS, but they’ve been able to coexist long enough that I think Apple would prefer to keep a known rival than an unpredictable one. Imagine if Apple were competing more directly with Linux as a dominant player instead of Windows. The dynamics are a bit different.
“Even Apple is backing this? Can someone be nice enough to explain to me whats in this for Apple and why they should choose to back this effort? I can’t think of any reasons why or why not, but I thought Apple is a competitor to Microsoft and would be against it.”
I suspect there is already an agreement in place between MS, Apple, and a list of other players to back this format. They are setting up a chain of events to make ODF appear the “odd man out”, as an untested and unapproved open format.
ODF is a wonderful format, however it’s fighting an uphill battle against professionals who have been playing this game a lot longer and with considerably more resources available.
Upon approval the press will praise MS for generously opening their format for use by the world. ODF will assume a position of being the format of Open Office.
This all sucks, but it’s not far flung from the truth.
Apple have all the reason in the world to back this. So far OpenOffice and StarOffice have no real MacOS-X implementations. (X11 doesn’t count for most Mac users).
If Apple can’t offer a good Office functionality to their customers, they will not have any customers. Currently they largely depend on Microsoft to get it.
MS’s format is complete gibberish; basically just a memory dump of Word’s internal data. It’s not a even a *reasonably* useful standard for data interchange, and certainly not for the wide range of uses OpenDocument could be put too. You should go read up on the comparison that was done, here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543
Anyone who considers MS Office’s XML to be on a sane alternative to OpenDocument simply doesn’t understand the issues, imho.
Aside from that, Massachusetts ITD stated that Microsoft would have to make sure their format was NOT controlled by them going forward, but by an independent committee, if it was to be seriously considered Open. That hasn’t happened, and is unlikely to happen, even if ECMA allows its name to be used alongside the mess that MS have created.
Two problems with the link you provided.
1. It’s on Groklaw
2. Its written by the ODF Fellowship
So I can only take that at face value.
But you wouldn’t read and try to understand it, why would you indeed.
So I can only take that at face value.
Are you unable to access Groklaw? It’s been working for me. (Try .net if .com doesn’t do it for ya.)
What problem are you [specifically] referring to with the article written by the ODF Fellowship?
What information do you not normally take at face value? I would think that taking the information at face value in this case would be a good thing. Did you actually read it?
If anyone has a more vested intrest in ODF than the so called ” ODF fellowship” show them to me.
So this then springs to mind for any OPEN SAUCE proponent.
ODF (and the association with OPEN SAUCE ) =GOOD
Anything not OPEN SAUCE =BAD
You can generally only take things on face value from anyone that has a vested intrest ;as so many OPEN SAUCE preponents like to point out every time Microsoft pays for a study.
So that’s probably why he states “So I can only take that at face value. ”
Remeber everyone is baised.
I remember reading on Groklaw that the MSXML format introduced a binary key which kept all the styles and layouts. What’s the big idea of going “Half XML”?
XML is supposed to be text… and that binary key could be used to keep everyone but MSOffice and allies out.
If Microsoft’s standards are (and will stay!) equally open and technically as sane as OpenDocument, I wouldn’t really care that much about it. I just want to be able to communicate with the rest of the world, without having to rely on reverse engineered import/export filters.
The problem is, however, that it probably won’t. Several potential problems come to mind: patents, GPL, compatibility. Also, will the new open format be the default format in the new MS Office? This is very important, imho.
I have never understood the aversion to the so called advertising clauses in software licenses. It is a small price to pay for the use of somebody else’s code to have to acknowledge where you got it from.
No reasonable person objects to giving credit where it’s due. That’s not the issue.
The original BSD license went far beyond giving credit. It required that any ad for a product incorporating BSD code include both notice that BSD code was included and a disclaimer holding the University of California not liable for any damages. Again, giving credit is not the problem, nor is the disclaimer. It’s putting it in *every* ad, everywhere, all of the time.
Some interpreted that clause as requiring that the credit be shown every time that the program was run. If everyone insisted on those terms, every program would fill the screen with credits before you could get any work done. It’s unworkable, it’s a nuisance.
Credit belongs in the source code, when provided, and in the license. It’s good form to include credit in ‘Help>About’ screens, and in documantation.
But not in every TV, radio, and print ad. Imagine if every Microsoft ad listed all third party code used. They couldn’t do a 30 second ad, it wouldn’t be long enough.
That’s why they call it an advertising clause, not a credit clause.
Hmm.. this is untrue.. the advertisement clause doesn’t apply to ads, only to system documentation. Even if it were to apply, ads always carry small signs with irrelevant information.<BR>
The problem the GPL has against the clause is ideological: software under the GPL is supposed to be given to the community at large an further control by the owner unto “what can be done with the code” restricted.
Free, Open, GPL is often enough for a piece of software, but it is NOT enough, for a format standard. A format must also be easy to work with.
Mirosoft BOTTOM LINE: Keep the bar high for competitors, i.e. if the formats must be OPEN, at least keep them difficult to work with. Achieve this difficulty by making them complex to parse and understand. Also, continue introducing new, better “open standards” when competitors spring up using the existing open standars.
What? The purpose of a standard is defeated if it does not stay the same for a relatively significant period of time? Well, that’s no way to make money!
The difference between the MSOffice XML format and the OpenDocument format does not only relies in the attached licenses.
OpenDocument is internally based on other stardardised format :
– SVG for graphics
– MathML for equations
– XLink for links
– Standard tags for document properties : Author, keywords …
This allows a much easier integration for foreign tools to automatically process and generate that type of documents.
It also provides room for extension of other data types ( one could imagine for example embedding music scores directly in a OpenDocument file by using standardized tags ).
The MS Format, is, like their software, closed. Basically, it is a “textified” transposition of an ad hoc binary format.
[Treza]
OpenDocument is internally based on other stardardised format :
– SVG for graphics
– MathML for equations
– XLink for links
– Standard tags for document properties : Author, keywords …
i hope IBM, Novell, Google, etc… participate at the ECMA TC and put in the table this points, and the licensing/patents issues too
“i hope IBM, Novell, Google, etc… participate at the ECMA TC and put in the table this points, and the licensing/patents issues too”
I’m certain as members of ECMA, IBM and Novell will do exactly that.
Ultimately, if Microsoft is truly opening the format it’s not going to make an iota of difference. Opening the format does not likely include release under the GPL, or making it an easy format to adopt.
Issues dealing with the usability of the format within other license models are not criteria the ECMA will be concerned with.
ECMA examine and rule on “standards”, not license models a group decided was a great idea at the beginning of their project. That would be a problem with the GPL or whatever license they chose, rather than a problem with the proposed standard itself.
“Micorsoft”
I don’t know if this has been posted already before. It’s a letter to the ECMA by the CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
http://www.ccianet.org/filings/ip/ECMA_letter_12705.pdf
“Yet, for all of its importance, the proposal before you does not meet basic principles of openness. It provides no assurances as to third-party access or implementation of the standard. The proposal does not call for open management and control. In fact, it indicates that no one can introduce or remove features from Office 12 save Microsoft itself. Lastly, there is no assurance that the Microsoft will actually support the standard should it disagree with actions taken by Ecma.”
I think that Microsoft makes it’s “Office Open” (nice name…) specification available in a Microsoft Installer file says enough. Anyone who believes that Microsoft is suddenly interested in open formats/source/standards is a daydreamer IMHO.
“I don’t know if this has been posted already before. It’s a letter to the ECMA by the CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.”
Whatelse would you expect from one of the largest supporters of open source on earth? They have made hatred of MS into a means of making a living for a pack of stuffed suits.
Neither Apple nor Novell are voting members of ECMA, but “associate members”. Almost all of the voting members either make products that interface with/run Windows or wouldn’t care one way or the other. Even a company that’s in direct competition with microsoft like Sony sells windows laptops.
As far as I can see the only company completely independent of MS on the list is IBM and they voted against.
IBM waving their arms in the air means nothing. IBM has burned far too many bridges, and has filed far too many lawsuits, to be seen as anything other than a bitter and jealous MS rival. Novell is in the exact same boat.
Some of these companies who have attempted to sue Microsoft out of business, are gradually learning it wasn’t a great plan for future battles.
Almost all of the voting members either make products that interface with/run Windows or wouldn’t care one way or the other.
As far as I can see the only company completely independent of MS on the list is IBM and they voted against.
Being independent doesn’t require being a direct competitor with a stake in shutting down everything MIcrosoft does. There are plenty of companies there that aren’t affiliated with Microsoft nor in competition with it — they’re the ones who will vote without prejudice here, not IBM.
it’s open if it has it as prefix!
ECMA also saves Mono from MS sueing right? that M in ECMA should be looked at
Why did MS choose ECMA and not ISO? What is the difference between these two standards organizations?
“Why did MS choose ECMA and not ISO?”
Nobody with a brain would submit a software format to ISO.
It WILL take forever to get any action, likely not be accepted on the first submission, and generally hang is space without anyone doing a god damn thing for many months, if not years.
If ODF wanted to be a standard, this is a lesson in how NOT to go about it. (fatal error in judgement)
Since I couldn’t post anywhere else, isn’t it amazing that osnews.com has NOT covered the fact that South Korea found Microsoft guilty of being a monopoly? You’d think that this would have been a prominent news story, but alas no…Seeing the amount of pro Open XML stories, and negative ODF stories is also worrying. It’s obvious to myself (and many others) that osnews.com is heavily skewered in reporting in favour of Microsoft and it’s bullying cronies, than the actual truth in the matter(s).
Dave
I think its a bit far fetched to think that way. We dont have to be all crazy like the slashdot group. I see a good balance of Apple, BSD, Linux, Windows (alphabetical
) and general tech reviews on OSnews.
Did anyone even submit the news about the South Korea fine. Then again its going to be years in courts just like the EU fine.
“Seeing the amount of pro Open XML stories, and negative ODF stories is also worrying. It’s obvious to myself (and many others)”
Many of us just want a universal format to exchange documents in. It doesn’t make an iota of difference which format it is, who developed it, or if it’s able to be incorporated under the GPL or any other damn license.
Personally, I just want something that works, and doesn’t require me to switch from MS Office. All the hype about OO being a direct replacement for recent versions of MS Office isn’t working for me, or our organization. (hopelessly locked in ages ago)
Totally off topic:
Like many others, I don’t give a hoot in hell if MS is or isn’t a monopoly. I just want applications that enable me to get my work done, so I can go play golf.
1) “…I don’t give a hoot in hell if MS is or isn’t a monopoly.”
2) “I just want applications that enable me to get my work done”
There’s the contradiction. A monopoly has less reason to help you get your work done than competitors in a healthy market. Sure, even a monopoly has to make sure that you have some reason to buy, so their products have to provide some help in getting your work done. But if you want the most help, you need competitors fighting for your business.
Antitrust law exists for sound, pragmatic reasons, not idealogy. If anything, the idealogues are the ones who support monopolies. Everyone else realizes that monopolies deny the market of the beneficial effects of true competition. Benefits not just for the customers, but for the providers, as well. Monopolies lack the course correction that competition provides, and more often than not, end up hitting a reef and sinking.
Microsoft can and should support ODF, which is designed to be universal. OfficeXML is designed to support Microsoft formats and tools. The first would let you stay with Microsoft Office, or use alternatives. The second would keep you locked into Microsoft, preventing you from switching. The wonderful thing about being *able* to switch is that it tends to eliminate the *need* to switch. My long distance telephone rates came down without my switching providers. The fact that some people switched, the fact that I could switch, was all it took. Store your documents in ODF format, and keep on using Microsoft Office, and you should still get the benefit.
“Microsoft can and should support ODF, which is designed to be universal. OfficeXML is designed to support Microsoft formats and tools. The first would let you stay with Microsoft Office, or use alternatives. The second would keep you locked into Microsoft, preventing you from switching.”
Microsoft isn’t going to support ODF. The attempt by the community to force MS to adopt ODF has already failed.
While MS Office is proprietary, it is so widely used it has established the standard format for business in the U.S. and beyond. Like it or not, it’s true.
The “open everything” community fails to understand most people and businesses have no intention of switching to anything else. They are not concerned with being locked in, not concerned with the price of the applications, and will reject any notion of “change” from their current format.
You don’t take a running business and turn the damn thing upside down, because you can. It’s a dream of every network admin to do that, but it doesn’t work that way.
Microsoft doesn’t want to support ODF. They don’t support it yet. But, unlike you, I do NOT write off the possibility that they will. I think that customer demand will force them to support ODF. Not if, when.
When is the hard question. Microsoft will delay as long as they can. They are past masters at delay. How many times have they pulled the rug out from under better technologies and products with the “Wait for ours, it’s better, and it will be here soon” marketing blitz? Sort of like Office 12 XML will be here soon, will be an ECMA standard soon, and so on.
You are right that people do not like change, that they don’t want to switch. But you are very wrong if you think that businesses aren’t concerned by lockin or price. And you fail to realize that people will be switching anyway. Microsoft’s business model depends on their switching to new versions. So they will be switching to a new version of Office, on a new version of Windows. Or they can switch to something else. Neither switch will be free or painless.
Moving away from current versions of MS Office will have costs. Licensing costs are part of it, but the larger cost is in training users and converting legacy documents. That’s true whether you stay with Microsoft or go elsewhere. In the past, Microsoft has been careful to keep the cost of staying in the lock-in corral slightly less than the cost of jumping the fence. They got to where they are by making their corral less costly to stay in than all of the other proprietary, locked-in corrals. But they can’t be cheaper than the unfenced open range – a true open standard with competing implementations that don’t lock you in.
Microsoft tried to lock everyone into their own networking protocol. They failed. TCP/IP, even with its warts and flaws, trumps every other network protocol because it’s open and good enough. That change didn’t happen overnight, and neither will this one.
With the exception of Sony, Microsoft has stomped every other company that uses the same tactics as Microsoft. The one tactic that they can’t beat is open standards.
It doesn’t make an iota of difference which format it is, who developed it, or if it’s able to be incorporated under the GPL or any other damn license.
If it’s not able to be used with all software/licenses how is it universal? Are you sure you don’t mean ubiquitous, or maybe just very common?
Personally, I just want something that works, and doesn’t require me to switch from MS Office. All the hype about OO being a direct replacement for recent versions of MS Office isn’t working for me, or our organization. (hopelessly locked in ages ago)
Now that seems perfectly clear…
Quote: “Like many others, I don’t give a hoot in hell if MS is or isn’t a monopoly. I just want applications that enable me to get my work done, so I can go play golf.”
And that’s exactly why the software industry is so f–ked up, and why Microsoft has such a huge monopoly with nothing being done about it, resulting in a restriction of trade for other software companies.
Dave
[quote]Many of us just want a universal format to exchange documents in. It doesn’t make an iota of difference which format it is, who developed it, or if it’s able to be incorporated under the GPL or any other damn license. [/quote]
To be universal, it should be able to be incorporated by nearly any license. So not caring for that is a contradiction…
I hope OpenDocument wins, I like OpenOffice.org.
Happy ????????????????????????
I’m not. Back in 1997, a time when Apple was in trouble, Bill Gates purchased $150 Million US Dollars worth of non-voting Apple Stock. This enabled Apple to keep in business with no issues at that time. If you notice, although they ARE competitors, there is very little published rivalry between the 2. Go ahead and google it, as it is out there. I remember seeing the newscast.