Free-software lawyers: Don't trust Microsoft's Open XML patent pledge
Prominent legal counsel the Software Freedom Law Center said that the legal terms covering Microsoft's Open XML document formats pose a patent risk to free and open-source software developers.
The SFLC on Wednesday published a legal analysis of Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (OSP), a document written to give developers the green light to make open-source products based on specifications written by Microsoft.
The OSP is meant to allay concerns over violating Microsoft patents that relate to Open XML, Microsoft's document specifications that the company is trying to have certified as a standard at the ISO (International Organization for Standardization). For example, a company could create an open-source spreadsheet or server software that can handle Open XML documents.
Microsoft is awaiting the results of a crucial vote, expected by March 29, from representatives of national standards bodies.
But the SFLC said that the OSP is not to be trusted. It said that it did the legal analysis following the close of a recent Ballot Resolution Meeting held to resolve problems with the Open XML specification.
Specifically, the SFLC concluded that the patent protections only apply to current versions of the specifications; future versions could not be covered, it noted.
Also, software developers who write code based on a Microsoft-derived specification, such as Open XML, could be limited in how that code is used. "Any code that implements the specification may also do other things in other contexts, so in effect the OSP does not cover any actual code, only some uses of code," according to the analysis.
Finally, the SFLC said that OSP-covered specifications are not compatible with the General Public License (GPL), which covers thousands of free and open-source products.
Most open-source software advocates have opposed Microsoft's effort to standardize Open XML and the SFLC is no exception.
While not attempting to clarify the text of the OSP to indicate compatibility with the GPL or provide a safe harbor through its guidance materials, Microsoft wrongly blames the free software legal community for Microsoft's failure to present a promise that satisfies the requirements of the GPL. It is true that a broad audience of developers could implement the specifications, but they would be unable to be certain that implementations based on the latest versions of the specifications would be safe from attack. They would also be unable to distribute their code for any type of use, as is integral to the GPL and to all free software.As the final period for consideration of OOXML by ISO elapses, SFLC recommends against the establishment of OOXML as an international standard and cautions GPL implementers not to rely on the OSP.
A Microsoft representative was not immediately available for comment.
Update 5:30 p.m. PDT: A Microsoft representative pointed to previous statements on the intellectual property and Open XML. In a blog in January of this year, Jason Matusow, the company's director of corporate standards, said that there are no intellectual property issues with Open XML, dismissed claims that there are, and listed the steps Microsoft has taken to clear up any concerns regarding Open XML.Update 9:00 a.m. PDT, March 13: Gray Knowlton, group product manager for Microsoft Office, published a detailed rebuttal of the SFLC's analysis, saying that Open XML's terms are the same or more liberal than rival document standard OpenDocument (ODF), which is supported by Microsoft foes IBM and Sun Microsystems.
This is an unfortunate report, these all represent issues that have been raised in a campaign that includes innuendo and supposition, leaving out inconvenient information and language and ignoring the same, similar, or less attractive, language that exists for ODF.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
So by your definition, any software distributed under a license that isn't GPL is not "true" open source. Refer to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical for many legitimate alternative open source licenses. GPL is not the end all of open source licenses and the whole software world doesn't need to distribute software under GPL to be classified as legitimate open source or even "good software".
I'm a fan of both Microsoft and many Open Source software projects. I use both on a daily basis and both provide value to businesses, organizations, consumers, and developers.
It's a sad when the hatred of Microsoft blinds people into reverting to FUD. When the open source community reverts to the FUD tactic made so popular by Microsoft, it's a sad and desperate day. What happened to letting legitimate technologies compete and leaving it up to the market to determine the winner? Isn't competition best for innovation and consumers? Instead, it seems too many in the open source community are now reverting to FUD tactics, which reeks of desperation and immaturity and leads to loss of credibility in the minds of consumers, organizations, and businesses.
Microsoft is making some legitimate and valuable steps toward interoperability and openness, maybe it's not far enough for some people (and it's unlikely anything Microsoft does would be), but let's have the moral and intellectual integrity to recognize Microsoft's obvious shift in business practices over the years, rather than be be blinded by the hatred.
I will reiterate my concern of earlier this week - there seems to be an imbalance in the reporting here. Why the MS updates all the time with these stories? Why can't those be in the initial reporting? Would you give Bob Sutor the same "opportunity" to comment as MS?
The optics look out of focus to ths reader, and makes me question the newsgathering techniques. It looks like stuff just wasn't dug up - a job of a reporter. You do that enough, then why should I read it - it's likely to change at some later date.
- This OSP is inadequate. GPL is not the only available open license.
- by ArtInvent March 13, 2008 11:41 AM PDT
- I'm all for MS Office as a tool to work on documents. But the whole point with this subject is an international ISO standard. There should NEVER be ANY ISO standard that is dictated or controlled by a single company, government, or person. That is simply ludicrous. Even if you believe that proprietary software is the best business model and good for the user, having a document or file format that is proprietary is wrong, anti-competitive and just a really bad idea. If MS thinks the current standard is inadequate or flawed there is nothing stopping MS from developing and contributing to a truly open standard like Open Document ODF etc. That is how it's supposed to work and the only way to keep the playing field level. Having two standards for the same things is idiotic. There is no need for Open XML and it should be quashed.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Open XML has it's roots in the world wide web
- by Seaspray0 March 14, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
- It should be allowed for 2 simple reasons.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
(15 Comments)If Open XML were a truly open standard, MS should have no problem using the GPL for it or one of the many other compatible and approved open source licenses. The SFL gives a fair shake to companies in considering licenses besides the GPL and has already approved other licenses proposed by MS. Why doesn't MS use one of these for Open XML?
If MS wants to keep their leading place in the office software area, what they need to do is keep innovating and produce a superior product. If they can do that they deserve the reward. But there's no reason to allow them to stay ahead by giving their proprietary format preferential treatment.
1. There have always been multiple standards and the competition is good. i.e. tcp/ip vs ipx/spx or ethernet vs token ring. If we had been limited to a single standard, we'd all be on the internet with ipx/spx on token ring networks. May the best standard win.
2. open xml is based on... xml, which is a revision of html... the basis of all web pages on the internet. Including the metadata into the format allows for easy transition of data between programs. Open office should have used this format in the first place. This is a format that already has roots from the world wide web and will greatly simplify data sharing between apps and is in may ways superior to to any other document format out there.
And no, microsoft can't use the GPL for it for the same reason ATI won't release GPL drivers for linux, it would place exisiting proprietary software at risk. Proprietary? Yes. Free? Yes. There is more than one model to provide software for free than the GPL and they do work.