Notes2Self.net

Stephen McGibbon's Web Journal
Voices for Innovation is a global community working together to shape the technology policy debate. We want every voice heard. Join now and make a difference.

Recent comments

Reading

FUD Fighting: Microsoft pledges support for ISO-approved Open XML specification in products.

Chris Capossela has written an open letter (which seems to be an increasingly popular thing to do these days)  that includes the following statement (my emphasis):-

As a result of global feedback and consideration, the Open XML standard under consideration by ISO/IEC has been significantly improved. Microsoft has been afforded a wonderful opportunity as a result of this process. We've listened to the global community and learned a lot, and we are committed to supporting the Open XML specification that is approved by ISO/IEC in our products.

I'm aware that some of Microsoft's competitors have expressed concern about whether Microsoft intended to do this, so I guess this will bring some reassurance.

Posted: Mar 18 2008, 12:56 AM by Stephen McGibbon | with 16 comment(s)
Filed under:

Comments

Luc Bollen said:

Steven,

Does that means that in the next version of MS Office, there will be a "Save as ISO 29500" option (i.e. with strict conformance, and without extensions like DRM, macros, SharePoint tags...) ?

# March 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Luc Bollen said:

While fighting FUD : what about an update of the OSP asserting that it will remain applicable to any version of ISO/IEC 29500 published by ISO, including for products developed under GPL V2 & V3 ?

This would be a wonderful way of stopping what you call FUD on these subjects.

# March 18, 2008 12:05 PM

André said:

What assurance do you give the markets that Microsoft will implement a possible ISO 29500 at all?

What precisely did your company learn?

# March 18, 2008 3:53 PM

hAl said:

@Luc bollen

[quote]: what about an update of the OSP asserting that it will remain applicable to any version of ISO/IEC 29500 published by ISO, including for products developed under GPL V2 & V3 ? [/quote]

I gues you are referring to the SFLC statment. If you had actually read the SFLC document you should have noticed that they confirm the OSP licensing is applicaple to Office Open XML implementations even when they are GPL. If any concern is raised it is about reuse of code outside Office Open XML  implementations.

That is actually similar to the Sun CNS on ODF which also  applies only on ODF implemntations and not on reuse of code outside that.

And the suggested future version issue is actually identical to the ISP pledge licensing from IBM on ODF (or should I say (ODF v1.0 and ODF v1.1 only).

Is is legally a minefield to state an irrevocable promise on unlimited future versions that do not yet exist and on which you cannot know what it will contain and in future also might not have any control over.

# March 18, 2008 11:58 PM

Andre said:

@HAl: ++

Anyway, the OSP needs an update. Why not get a common indemnification model with your friends from SUN?

# March 19, 2008 12:29 AM

hAl said:

@Andre

[quote]Why not get a common indemnification model with your friends from SUN?[/quote]

The Sun covenant on Opendocument would actually not  be sufficient. Ecma international (that developed OOXML) has rules that require that if a member votes approval on a standard within Ecma that this member grants RAND patent licensing to that format. The Sun coventant only applies to versions that Sun contributed to as has no clause for approval votes. That would not be sufficient under Ecma International rules.

In theory Microsoft could make a patent promise that conforms with Ecma rules that applies to every future version they contribute OR vote approval on in Ecma. However that would make the OSP promise less generic and less applicable to the other OSP covered formats that are not standardized but are under full control of Microsoft. Having only one such very free license that covers that list of Microsoft formats is actually an important improvement.

And as this is a practise also used by for instance IBM for open document it would seems a rather accpetable way of licensing patent rights to anyone.

# March 19, 2008 8:51 AM

Luc Bollen said:

@hAl: No, I was not at all referring to the SFLC statement, and I don't see the relationship between my comment to Stephen and Sun or IBM.  Please don't restart once again this old tired discussion.

I was just suggesting to Stephen that a better way to "fight FUD" is to include directly in the OSP text the clarifications that MS is giving in blogs and open letters.

And I would be interested to read what HE thinks about it, as well as what Microsoft exactly means by "committed to supporting the Open XML specification that is approved by ISO/IEC".

# March 19, 2008 11:39 AM

Ed Brill said:

Stephen is too busy taking journalist's statements and attributing them to IBM to answer questions on his own posts.

# March 19, 2008 10:28 PM

Stephen McGibbon said:

Ed's referring to this exchange on his blog.

# March 19, 2008 10:43 PM

Stephen McGibbon said:

ah, I see what Ed meant now Embarrassed 

Luc, Office 2007 uses Ecma376 OpenXML as the default formats today. Chris' post states that Microsoft is comitted to implementing IS29500 if DIS29500 is accepted, and I imagine this will be the default format then too.

Of course it will be conformant. You're not forced to use macros, DRM, etc if you don't want to.

I believe we've also confirmed that if DIS29500 is approved the OSP will apply to IS29500 too.

Regarding the GPL, I am not a lawyer and I can't give you legal advice. I note there are implementations of OpenXML being used with Ubuntu, and the next version of OpenOffice.Org though.

Also I see this in the OSP Q&A

Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specification(s) without any concerns about Microsoft patents?

A: The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specification(s). We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s).

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Open Specification Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes. The OSP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The OSP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the OSP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

and there's this quote from Mark Webbink, Deputy General Counsel of Red Hat Inc :-

“Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications in response to our comments.”

You might also find this page on Jason's blog useful.

# March 21, 2008 1:20 AM

Stephen McGibbon said:

André I don't understand what you're asking.

# March 21, 2008 1:49 AM

Luc Bollen said:

Stephen, the fact that OOXML (the Ecma version) or OpenXML (the MS version) is used by Ubuntu or OpenOffice does not mean that these products are protected from patents claims by Microsoft!

Of course, MS will not sue anybody now, a few days before the closing of the ISO vote.  And MS will not sue a partner, nor Joe Blogs for implementing OOXML (or OpenXML/ECMA376/DIS29500/IS29500 or whatever published version).

But the day Ubuntu has 50% of the OS market share, or OpenOffice has 50% of the office suite market share, will this still the case ?

It would just need for MS to make a few changes, publish a new version, and say that the OSP does not apply to this new version. And bingo, Steve Balmer will be able to claim (once again) that Ubuntu infringes IP rights from MS.

Or MS can sell a few patents to a patent troll to achieve the same result.

I think that it would be wiser for any serious competitor to Microsoft to avoid making any use of OOXML as soon as possible.

# March 21, 2008 1:53 AM

Luc Bollen said:

Stephen (and hAl - as you love to talk about IBM these days),

I think the key words here are confidence and trust.  It seems that nowadays a lot of people have more confidence in IBM and Sun behaviour than in Microsoft's behaviour.  And nobody is currently locked in Sun's office suite (simply because they use ODF, as several other office suites).

That's why we are much more cautious about what MS says than about what IBM and Sun say.

To change this, MS should take *actions* that will re-establish trust and confidence.  But unfortunately, with this OOXML Fast Track story, I think that what is going on is exactly the opposite.

So, don't be surprised to see more and more people cautious about MS (and OOXML), and not caring too much about IBM, Sun, Google, Oracle... (and ODF).

# March 21, 2008 2:22 AM

hAl said:

@Luc Bollen What you are essentially saying is that you have fallen for the big IBM FUD machine on Office Open XML. So when IBM applies the same licensing to ODF as Microsoft does to Office Open XML then the MS is Evil and IBM is loveable. That is strange. Mayby you should ask who has been paying the bill for that SFLC publication or who is paying the bills for the ODF alliance (that writes more on Office Open XML than on ODF) or the OFE meeting in Geneva or a few other organisations that I can think of...
# March 21, 2008 11:52 AM

Luc Bollen said:

@hAl: Please stop your own FUD about IBM. I have not "fallen" for anything from IBM. I've been cautious about MS management and PR speak since the Netscape story in the late 90's, that I followed very closely. Before MS started abusing its own monopoly situation, I was a strong supporter of MS actions against the IBM monopoly (in computer services in general and PCs in particular). Please note that I never said that IBM is loveable. It is clear to me that all big corporations are lobbying hard to protect and increase their revenues. Simply, I find IBM is currently behaving much more ethically than MS. I understand that you have differing views. So be it... PS: FYI, I own a MSc in computing sciences and I have been a consultant and project manager for big IT projects for 25 years. Therefore, I don't need advice from IBM, SFLC, ODF Alliance or anybody else to understand what is bad behaviour on these subjects.
# March 21, 2008 1:35 PM

Luc Bollen said:

@hAl: "the ODF alliance (that writes more on Office Open XML than on ODF)" About this, I agree with you. Indeed, it is a pity that MS managed to have everybody loosing time talking and writing about OOXML, while it would be much more productive to disregard OOXML and improve ODF and OpenOffice. Unfortunately, this is part of MS strategy: use OOXML to distract all their competitors while MS tries to increase their monopoly and, as collateral, undermines ISO reputation. Sad.
# March 21, 2008 1:54 PM