RSSUpdated: Microsoft clarifies its promise not to sue for OOXML
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published February 15, 2008, 12:26 PM
5:45 pm ET Feburary 15, 2008 - The question of which unilateral promise from Microsoft is supposed to apply to its Office Open XML format suite was supposed to have been clarified this morning by the company. At least that was the plan, and in the end, the matter may actually be settled, but in the middle, at least, there was more than a little confusion.
Here is the story as we now understand it: Microsoft's position, according to a spokesperson with whom BetaNews spoke this afternoon, is that the company did indeed originally release OOXML under the Open Specification Promise (OSP) in September 2006, as indicated by this blog posting at the time from the company's director of corporate standards, Jason Matusow.
There, Matusow lists OOXML as one of the charter entries listed under the new Promise, and he also specifically distinguishes the OSP from the "covenant not to sue" (CNS) under which other intellectual property had been offered previously.
Any indication that developers may have had in the intervening period that OOXML was actually covered by a CNS and not by the OSP, the spokesperson indicated to us, would be a mis-perception on the developers' part -- including, apparently, some whom we quoted this morning.
The spokesperson indicated earlier this afternoon, in updating our original story this morning, that today's extension of the OSP by Microsoft actually does go one step further, as many were actually expecting: The binary formats for Office 2003 were also added to the Open Specification Promise.
Now developers no longer need to request access to the binary file format documentation in writing or by mail, the spokesperson said; they can now download all the documentation they need directly from Microsoft.
The spokesperson did agree that today's move should clarify any confusion about the matter that developers may have had before.
12:26 pm EST - In another carefully timed move to garner support for its document format still under consideration for an international standard, Microsoft today altered clarified the terms under which use of its Office Open XML format by developers is permitted.
Though it was probably bound to happen anyway, the timing of the move is important: With its Office System Developers' Conference in San Jose this week coming to a close, and with a committee of the ISO standards organization in Geneva set to examine its responses to over 3,500 of its members' concerns, Microsoft moved today to place its Office Open XML document formats under its Open Specification Promise (OSP).
That document, which is unilateral and which Microsoft claims is binding, essentially states that the company will never raise claims of infringement against anyone using the formats and protocols listed -- which now include OOXML -- so long as that person or company doesn't raise infringement claims against Microsoft.
The move probably comes as a response to open source developers who raised concerns well over a year ago that the covenant under which OOXML was being released -- which went by a longer name, but which was also called simply the "Covenant Not to Sue" (CNS), which currently applies to the Office 2003 binary file formats -- wasn't in keeping with the spirit of open source.
A November 2006 letter by the CTO of the Software Freedom Law Center raised that issue at the start of the whole international standards debate over OOXML. "A careful examination of Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Non-Compensated Developers reveals that it has little value," Bradley Kuhn wrote then. "The patent covenant only applies to software that you develop at home and keep for yourself; the promises don't extend to others when you distribute. You cannot pass the rights to your downstream recipients, even to the maintainers of larger projects on which your contribution is built."
While the OSP is more explicit and formal, it also doesn't make any express references to downstream recipients' rights. One reason, some say, is because the specification is a unilateral promise rather than a license.
Microsoft's approach to the issue, expressed in its FAQ on the same page as the OSP, is to leave it to others to decide. "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)," the FAQ reads, leaving open to speculation even the matter of whether the OSP deserves a singular or plural noun. "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," the FAQ continues, "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)."
The company is even leaving open the matter of which specification applies, or which takes precedence -- the OSP or the CNS -- to the general community.
"Some have asked whether we would apply the OSP to Ecma Office Open XML," reads a new portion of the FAQ published just this morning. "We don't know whether some will choose the OSP over the CNS, but we want to make that an option."
Last week, representatives of European Union lawmakers declined to confirm for BetaNews the details of a story that had appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The story claimed lawmakers were investigating Microsoft for allegedly misusing its dominance in office applications to gain favorable treatment for OOXML during the standards process. Evidence of the company's behavior first turned up last August.
What was unusual about this decline is that such investigations in the past have been presented with almost all the production values of a political fundraiser. If such an investigation is indeed taking place, the European Commission may be reserving official comment until after the ISO review process in Geneva.
"a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s)."
Which is to say not everyone.
Since the only interpretation of the GPL that counts is that of the people who use it and enforce it a 10 minute phone call between FSF and Microsoft is all it would take to completely resolve the one and only real question about how Microsoft will be enforcing it's IP.
What I see is a question Microsoft doesn't want to have clearly answered.
Score: 0
|See me posting earlier (further) down, which clarifies any such concerns about GPL. Other postings below by me tell you that you can choose which of three licenses you feel like using -- all are free of royalties and patent encumbrances. And if you don't believe that, go and look for the public statements to that effect by the heads of the ECMA and ISO/IEC standards bodies.
And if that doesn't make you believe, you must be Scotch Moose.
By the way, Microsoft does want the legal situation to be very, very clear. Which is why it has made everything public, and has discussed it in great detail in its OOXML blogs.
Score: 0
|When I see a statement from Microsoft that says they would have no problem with a full, complete implementation of MS-ECMA-OOXML in a GPL licensed product then I'll agree they are clear on the issue.
But of course that will never happen. Mostly because a full, complete implementation of MS-ECMA-OOXML will never exist. Even Microsoft products diverge from the "standard."
Score: 0
|When I see a statement from Microsoft that says they would have no problem with a full, complete implementation of MS-ECMA-OOXML in a GPL licensed product then I'll agree they are clear on the issue.
But of course that will never happen.
So you will agree when something that will never happen happens? Sounds like willful ignorance to me...
Score: 0
|Riiiiight.
OpenOffice does *nothing* outside the ODF spec...
*laughs*
The standards are a baseline. Functionality that doesn't exist or that can be improved upon will be at the expense of compatibility.
Sure, everyone could submit their deviations through committee to have them added to the spec, but that takes forever and nothing would get done.
Score: 0
|OK, here is your statement from Micrsoft, on Jason Matusow's blog. See the Jan 11 blog for more details. That should satisfy everybody except Scotch Moose:
**Any required Microsoft patent rights are freely available to all developers and customers of
Open XML in either open source software or proprietary software.
**By stating that the covenant is “irrevocable,” Microsoft has assured users that there will not be a change in company policy at any point in the future.
**Vendors, distributors, and users of Open XML implementations benefit from the OSP just like implementers do. Consequently, there is no need for implementers to pass the promise on to others in their distribution channel, as it is always available to everyone directly.
**No one needs to sign anything or even reference Microsoft to take advantage of the OSP.
**This form of patent non-assert enables open source software implementations. It is especially convenient for open source software developers as there is no issue as to whether or not the IP is sub-licenseable.
**The OSP applies whether a party has a full or partial implementation. Parties get the same irrevocable promise from Microsoft either way.
Score: 0
|"standards are a baseline"
No, standards allow vendor independence, interoperability, and interchangeable parts. It you don't have that you don't have a standard.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
If you stick to a standard 100%, you have *zero* opportunity to innovate and progress. You effectively stifle any possibility to change any functionality whatsoever and lock yourself into interface-only updates.
Standards simply don't update quickly enough to keep up with the consumer requirement for constantly added functionality.
Score: 0
|True, leading edge is not standardized.
But if you want to store documents for 100 years and buy your tools through competitive bidding then you want a real standard.
Score: 0
|If that seems clear you've been spending too much time reading Microsoft EULAs.
Score: 0
|You'd be amazed how small that market is...
Ask any business. Most would rather be somewhat up-to-date (maybe a version or two behind) than in the dark ages. :)
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Can't argue so you are now trying to make the poster seem untrustworthy?
Nice tactic. You wouldn't happen to be in the Media, or a staunch supporter of Mr. Hilary Clinton, would you?
Score: 0
|You demand a statement.
You get it.
You attack the person who pointed you to the statement.
You have no credibility.
You must be Scotch Moose.
Score: 0
|OpenOffice has a list of over 300 deviations from the ODF 1.0 standard. The list is one the web... Go find it.
The various applications that "support" ODF 1.0 can't interchange documents without loss of information. Just go to discussion groups on ODF to see users griping about this.
ODF 1.0 doesn't "support" the various standards like SVG it claimed to support. It is just merely "inspired" by them. This is again well proved. Look it up.
A standard like ODF is therefor useless for archiving, let alone document interchange.
Scotch Moose, it's time to get your head out the muck, and see reality. It's really pitiful to see someone with blinkers like you.
Score: 0
|"You attack the person who pointed you to the statement."
Not the person just their claim to clarity.
The outstanding question is still unanswered.
A clear answer would be "yes" or "no" not 30 lines of blather.
Score: 0
|If the market for a standardized document format is so small I wonder why Microsoft has engaged in such aggressive shenanigans to get an ISO number?
Score: 0
|Well, they are sadly under the impression that getting certified will get those idiots crying "non-standard!" off their backs.
We've already seen that this isn't going to work as those same idiots are now crying, "bad ECMA! bad ISO!" for even considering it.
Score: 0
|Everybody else but you can see that they have answered yes.
Let me make a suggestion.
Go the Matusov's blog, ask the question, and ask for a yes/no answer.
Score: 0
|Can someone please tell me why this is such a big deal?
www.talkprice.net
Score: 0
|Sure, is is for software devlopers who wish to do anything with the information in Microsoft Office documents (either the old binary format like .doc, or the new format used in OOXML). It means they can do pretty well anthing they want, without worries about royalties, patents, lawsuits, etc. It also means they will get plenty of support from Micrsoft for their efforts.
Score: 0
|Tanks for clearing the up.
www.talkprice.net
Score: 0
|I see that Betanews censored my comment pointing out that their correction to the correction to this story is still incorrect. It was there briefly, and now is gone.
What else do you expect? This is all very embarrasing to them.
For those who want the facts only, forget what the Betanews reporter has written. Here is what has happened:
- As promised by Microsoft a month ago, they have now made the specifications for their old Binary document formats available under the OSP (Open Specification Promise).
- They have also, as promised, set up an open source development project to develop a translator from the old binary to the new OOXML formats.
- The new formats (contrary to the incorrect information from Beta news) have been available since 2006 under the OSP, as well as two other licenses (RAND-Z and Covenant Not to Sue -- CNS). Any developer can choose which license best fits their needs. All are free of royalty and patent encumbrances
- In a surprise move, Microsoft also made available under the OSP the documentation for three more Windows file formats: Windows Compound Binary File Format Specification; Windows Metafile Format (.wmf) Specification; and Ink Serialized Format (ISF) Specification.
Wouldn't you rather have the facts instead of the opinions and confused information of a Betanews reporter?
Score: 0
|I translate it for all:
MS: Please include our (bas****) OOXML format in your open source software for free because we are losing the battle against ODF!
And Betanews is giving a hand publishing this "news" (one month old actually) on the top of the page during the whole weekend because nobody seemed to note Microsoft alteration of their usually dark behavior.
This specially make me think about an older discussion about if Betanews publish biased articles towards Microsoft or not...
Score: 0
|because we are losing the battle against ODF!
ROFLMAO...
Priceless.
Score: 0
|I like your replies PC_tool... You laugh so easy.
Now, maybe you missed some information from the past:
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/12252/53
or http://freedomeurope.blo...-opposition-update.html
and closer: http://www.betanews.com/...ith_Comments/1187983327
And I am lazy now to post more info, but there are tons of information available for you to laugh at. If you are able to read and learned to use google you can do it, just try! Tip: maybe the search engine at Microsoft would not retrieve many results on that topic (LOL).
Score: 0
|Keep 'em coming, You are right, I do like to laugh.
Few things though: None of those imply OOXML is losing (marketshare), which is really all that matters.
I don't use *anything* MSN or "Live". Google all the way.
But hey...thanks for the laugh.
Score: 0
|Why can't microsoft just save their files to an already open standard?
Score: 0
|This has been gone over and over and over again. But for your sake, here are themain points:
- OOXML is an "already open standard"
- It's the only one that will not lose information contained in MS Office files. You wouldn't want to lose your information, would you?
I'm not going to go into the tedious details. This has been explained in detail many times over the last 2-3 years.
Score: 0
|This indeed has been gone over and over again...
- OOXML is _not_ an open standard. It is controlled by a single vendor, Micro$oft.
- True, it is the only closed, proprietary, patent encumbered format which will hold all your data contained in already closed, proprietary, patent encombered M$ Office files. This is the whole problem.
M$ makes over 50% of its annual revenues by locking people into their closed, proprietary formats. If they actually used an open format, this revenue stream would shrink considerably.
Score: 0
|Re update to update:
Sorry, that won't do either.
There has not been a "question of which unilateral promise from Microsoft is supposed to apply to its Office Open XML format suite". Any confusion is in your own mind, once again. (And, by the way, the promises do not relate to the MS Office suite; they relate to the document specification!)
As has been clearly stated by Microsoft many times, there is not ONE promise but THREE promises that can apply -- any developer can pick which one they like the best.
I mentioned this in my own comments. To quote myself:
"As things stand today, they have offered all developers their choice between a negotiated RAND-Z license, the OSP, or the CNS (Covenant not to sue) -- take your choice. It's all free of royalties and patent encumbrances."
So, your latest correction to a correction is WRONG!
Retract the story. Any while you're at it, consider firing the reporter. Whoever they are, they don't know dollars from donuts about OOXML and related matters.
Score: -1
|Re Update:
So much for zridling's praise of the reporting. The availability of OSP for OOXML is indeed old news, as I commented. There was no confusion about this (except in the mind of zridling and the reporter.)
As for accessing the binary information directly, that is ALSO OLD NEWS! Microsoft make a big announcement about this about a month ago.
Why don't you just retract the whole story?
Score: 0
|Microsoft announced this was happening on January 16 for today, February 15. This is not old news.
http://blogs.msdn.com/br...he-open-xml-format.aspx
Score: 0
|The announcement was a month ago, just as I (and you!) stated. Old news.
If it had not happened on schedule, then that would have been news.
Score: 0
|Also, don't let zridling's fear mongering about OOXML and GPL dissuade you from using OOXML. (He does this fearmongering on purpose.) It's a case of apples and oranges.
The best explanation of this I have seen is from the commenter "hAl", who writes (I have corrected typos):
"GPL is a copyright related license. It deals with copyrights on the source code. Source code based on the OOXML format spec has its own copyrights and is therefore sublicensable. The OSP is about patent rights. GPL does not grant you 3rd party patent rights.
However as Microsoft through the OSP grants the patent rights to anybody that implements or uses technology required for OOXML, there is no need for sublicensing of patent rights through GPL. That mean that OSS users and implementers therefore also get those rights automatically.
So for an OSS user that uses GPL software which implements OOXML that has copyrights through his GPL license and he may use Microsoft patented OOXML related technology through rights through the OSP.
Anybody that suggest sublicensing of the OSP patent rights is needed for GPL licensing of OOXML software is incorrect. This fall in the FUD category."
Score: 0
|Another M$ astroturfer. Hey ed, can you post the IP's posters are coming from? I bet this one is from somewhere in Washington state.
Score: 0
|OMG Pit in a MS thread and having no clue what he's talking about AGAIN! Truly I am shocked! He explains exactly WHY and you troll. nothing to see here folks move on.
According to the licensing it sure sounds like the format is being presented more for the developers and there are three different options depending on need and use.
I don't see the problem...
Score: 0
|Never worked with Microsoft, eh termie? Do something/anything with their stuff and they'll sue you into oblivion before even picking up the phone. With Gates' help, they just poured another $100 million into SCO to push more false IP claims against Linux, which they've lost in court twice now.
So knock off the nonsense, and read first before you post. Otherwise, you come off as an MS flame.
Score: 0
|Speaking from the guy who actually made a web page dedicated to a fictional character.
The terms specfically state what their intention is now of course if those terms disappear then you have a case, right now you have consistently said the same things over and over, and last time I checked gates is not a part of MS anymore...
Score: 0
|Otherwise, you come off as an MS flame.
lmao...
The irony is strong with this one...
Score: 0
|This is old news, months old!!! This is not good reporting at all.
Micrsoft put OOXML under OSP before it was submitted to ISO/IEC.
As things stand today, they have offered all developers their choice between a negotiated RAND-Z license, the OSP, or the CNS (Covenant not to sue) -- take your choice. It's all free of royalties and patent encumbrances.
Score: -1
|Once again, I give Scott Fulton credit for his diligence on stories surrounding MS-OOXML over the past two years, along with sorting through a lot of details, and providing very good reporting.
[via NoOOXML]:
It was pointed out before that the OSP has an unclear scope, is not sub-licensable (=probably GPL incompatible) and is of questionable validity in legal systems of nations other than the United States. Microsoft does everything it can to contribute to market confidence:
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.
The news we expected today from Microsoft was the public release of the Office binary specification under the OSP instead of the convenant not to sue. Public would mean that you don't need to individually request for it anymore.
________________________________________________
Also see:
http://notebook.bekkelun...ash;-the-apple-headache/
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1781
http://www.consortiuminf...story=20080208082501776
Score: 0
|