This stage of my analysis tracks the early opportunities to
exercise and adopt the emergent open formats for digital office-document
formats.
I'm particularly fascinated by the packaging conventions and document
organization that are accompanying introduction of Microsoft Office
Open XML formats. I am also interested in what OpenDocument
already has available in terms of public specification. I'm intrigued
by the lessons to be drawn from both efforts about achieving interchange, interoperability and
fidelity preservation using
open formats and their public specifications.
1.1 When the OASIS
OpenDocument specification was approved on May 1, 2005, I paid little
attention. Although I strongly favor opening of office-document
formats, I wasn't certain that ODF was adequate, especially with my
investment in the Microsoft Office System personally and for professional
reasons. I wasn't about to spend time destabilizing my current work
and my own legacy materials at this point. I didn't see much reason to
pay attention, especially being in the middle of a master's degree project
dissertation.
1.2 When Microsoft
announced on June 1, 2005, that Office "12" would use Office Open XML as its
Native Format, I stopped to look. The
Channel 9 video with Jean Paoli and Brian Jones caught my attention.
For me, the hint about the special packaging conventions was captivating.
Packaging innovations for documents have been a pet interest and I wanted to know much more. I was also impressed by the
fact that the Office 2003 XML Schemas were already available for use under
the licensing conditions that were being proposed. I had to deal with
an odd reaction to the royalty-free patent license though. Even though
the royalty-free license was expanding the rights to use the licensed
formats in software applications, I had this odd feeling that I was under a
legal threat and constraint. It was that "IP
Infringement Specter" that led me to begin this series of
analyses.
1.3 I dug deeper as
controversy surrounded the Microsoft announcements. I researched
the OASIS OpenDocument specification and the
intellectual-property conditions that surrounded
it. I dug into the available Microsoft materials that are part of the
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas and their
licenses. As new announcements unfolded,
I satisfied myself that parity was being reached with regard to licensing
conditions and openness. From my perspective, all progress is in the
right direction:
-
1.3.1
OpenDocument has an initial version at the level required for having a
public standard and its specification. There is enough stability
for implementations and adoption to commence, with more to be done to
establish successful, full-fidelity interchange among products.
-
1.3.2
Microsoft Office "12" Open XML will satisfy the preservation
and perpetual-access requirements for billions of Microsoft Office documents.
The stabilization of a public specification will follow. It is not
clear what interchange means in this case, and whether or not it would
involve eventual translation to and from some enrichment of OpenDocument
that allows preservation of fidelity with Microsoft Office.
-
1.3.3 We have
the opportunity to begin exploring interoperability, interchange, and
translation between public document formats, starting with the Office
2003 XML formats and the OpenDocument Format as implemented in products
like OpenOffice.org 2.0.
-
1.3.4 As the
remarkable packaging conventions for OOX
and allied products like the Microsoft XML Paper Specification (XPS)
are finalized, there will be more opportunities to explore the
document-processing and document-management applications those will
enable.
1.4 I developed a
comparison table to line up the relative status of
the two approaches, ODF (Open Document) and OOX (Office Open XML).
This shows how more-advanced OpenDocument is as a public
specification, while the Microsoft OOX effort will have to be more-complete
and rigorous to satisfy and maintain legacy-fidelity requirements. At
some point, the maturity and coverage of the efforts will converge to a
consistent level and we'll have learned what it takes to make
inter-translation work and what might be pragmatically-insurmountable
barriers.
2.1. I have
five levels of interest in these developments: as
user, author, system
architect, developer, and
scholar/teacher/scientist. These might have nothing to do with
your interests. They do account for how I allocate my energies to this
subject.
2.2 As an User.
I have an investment in my own electronic documents and those of my family.
Somewhere, on disks that I probably can't read any longer, and on machines
in storage, I still have files and records in WordStar, Borland Sprint, and
early versions of Microsoft Works. Having a way to preserve recovery
and access of those and all current materials is important to me.
I don't expect to recover the older files, but I want all materials for
which there is current software to be in forms that can outlive the software
and the current operating systems. In this regard, I am a pretty
staunch Microsoft Office user. It has provided me the longest-lived
legacy support of digital documents that I have ever enjoyed.
2.3 As an Author.
For authoring, my format of choice is HTML. You're looking at it.
My preferred authoring tool is Microsoft FrontPage, not for beautiful HTML
but for the production and publishing model that it supports via FrontPage
Extensions, local IIS, Visual Source Safe, and FTP. The HTML is a
public, open format. Even when I use intermediary services like
Blogger and special tools like Blogjet, I arrange to have the published HTML
on a site where I can preserve and repair the material as needed. I
love the ability to make and arrange hypertexts, and it's satisfying to
deliver passive, non-invasive HTML for easy viewing by readers and users.
-
2.3.1 Using
HTML does not satisfy requirements for provision of formatted hard copy,
and it is not enough for collaborative authoring and publication.
-
2.3.2 I also
use text files where I want minimum dependence on software for viewing,
and I employ Zip files for packaging of materials for preservation and
collaborative use.
-
2.3.3 You can
see how these preferences resonate with new packaging approaches
and the use of well-defined XML formats.
-
2.3.4 One
barrier that I encounter is that the material is not viewable everywhere
with equal facility. It is unfortunate that a web server is
required to provide the intended viewing experience and I don't know how
to overcome that. I want the materials to work as easily on a hard
drive and on a CD-ROM.
-
2.3.5 I'm not
terribly concerned about the constraints of mobile devices. I am
concerned about accessibility and international considerations.
I'd like tools that help me address those concerns.
2.4 As a System
Architect. Document processing systems have been an area of
professional focus for me. The
NuovoDoc "design for
document systems interoperability" says it all.
-
2.4.1 I also
support initiatives for integrating and use of document processing
systems (collectively termed
DMware), including
the niche Open Document Management API (ODMA)
and its integration model.
-
2.4.2 My
architectural instincts tell me there are new opportunities for the use,
interchange, and integration of managed documents and records in the
availability of these new formats.
-
2.4.3
I also see the Open Packaging Conventions (OPC) as a much broader
opportunity than just packaging of office documents (OOX and even ODF)
and print-ready formats (XPS). That alone makes the format definitions worthy of study and tracking as
the specifications mature.
-
2.4.4 I am in
the process of producing a
reference implementation for an ODMA
repository that is simple enough to illustrate important integration
principles. ODMA is a handy laboratory as well as a niche
opportunity for document-management products. The reference
implementation is also a way to illustrate ideas for production of
trustworthy
open-system components. I can see using OPC and OOX as ways to
augment the reference implementation with illustrative management of
compound documents, organization of annotated materials, integration of
content search, and coordination of metadata, for starters.
-
2.4.5 After
noticing where ODF is underspecified, I also threw my hat into the
OpenFormula
project for coming up with a public specification of formulas for use in
ODF tables (spreadsheets) and possibly other places in ODF. This
also gives me a focused way to teeth on the ODF specification and learn
to experiment with the Excel 2003 XML format and the XML formats of
other spreadsheet implementations. My ODMA commitments come first.
I can see a way that OpenFormula can fit with my developer interests so long as
I watch my priorities.
2.5 As a Developer.
I like the opportunity to develop code that is instructive and usable for
public purposes. I think I've always had that in mind, even when I was
developing closed-source products. But mostly I never developed
software that couldn't be usefully given away, whether it was or not. I think that began with
my first "official" programming job (as a "Clerk Typist A") in a department
of the University of Washington in 1959, and I can credit that to the
inspiration of Theodore L. Lomax (at Boeing Renton in 1958) and Calvin E.
Wright (my boss at the U of W Division of Counseling and Testing Services). I
also enjoy developing
examples, how to's and samples/demonstrations of the use of tools and
methodologies. Somehow, authoring, development, architecture, science
and scholarship all blend together for me.
-
2.5.1 All of
the ActiveODMA
work, including the ODMA reference implementation and the ODMdev
ODMA Development
Toolkit, is an outlet for my
writing software and programming with an eye to having instructive
results for others to use.
-
2.5.2 I have
an itch to develop further tools that support document and text
processing via composite operations. There are plenty of pieces around,
and some older efforts that seem to have disappeared (including
near-ancient ones of my own, now that I think of it). It strikes
me that there is a new opportunity to bring these kinds of tools to life
once again for the edification of a much broader community of
prospective users and learners.
-
2.5.3 The
nfoWare
projects are for conveying an understanding of what computers make
possible through expression and manipulation of data, with illustrative
tools for mastery of data and having data manipulations deliver
information. Understanding of XML, XML documents, and XML
processing is an important element of nfoWare, and the
public document formats will be valuable vehicles for illustration and
understanding.
-
2.5.4 Along
with providing a home for analyses of different open-format products,
the underlying data representations, and the manipulation of that data,
nfoWare is a place for collecting and creating generic
utilities that support data manipulation. Anything done with the
open formats will find a home here. Initially, these must be
spin-offs and companions of my ODMA commitments.
2.6 As a
Scholar/Teacher/Scientist. I have a scientific interest in our
understanding of the relationship that we have with computers and how we
reconcile the closed-world of computation with the lived experience and
physical reality in which computers are instruments for us. The use of data to
carry language is an appealing way to pick at and demonstrate topics of that
inquiry. I will say no more about that here beyond observing that I am
fascinated by Michael Kaplan's blog,
Sorting It All Out. The
curious will find more at
Numbering
Peano and sometimes via
Professor von
Clueless.
I am satisfied, at this point, that the licenses and permissions around
the OpenDocument format, the Office 2003 XML Schemas, and the previews of
the Office "12" Open XML formats (with Open Packaging Conventions) are
permissive enough for me to undertake work that I can give away without
problems. Although I choose to provide notices and warnings concerning
derivatives of the work of others, I don't find that a limitation for my own purposes
(e.g., for
ODMA
contributions). Here's
my breakdown of what the various licenses and other declarations involve.
3.1.1 The Copyright
Holders Reserve All Rights in the Specifications. Microsoft reserves all copyright in the specifications of the Office XML formats and of the XML Schema Definitions for those formats.
The OpenDocument 1.0 specification is similarly copyright by OASIS Open with
all rights reserved (OASIS 2005c).
3.1.2 Specifications
May be Freely Distributed. Along with Microsoft’s copyright notice, there is the grant of a perpetual, non-exclusive, limited
copyright license that begins:
Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the “Specification”), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make.
3.1.3
The OpenDocument 1.0 specification may
also be freely reproduced and distributed, according to the Notices (OASIS
2005c, Appendix F):
This document and translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others ... provided that the above copyright notice and
this paragraph are included on all such copies ... . However, this document itself does
[sic] not be modified in
any way ... .
3.1.4
Microsoft Does Not Permit Derivative Works. The required-notice exhibit is followed by this additional stipulation, making it clear what is
not being granted::
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
The simplest well-known license with comparable limitations (based on copyright alone) is the
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives license.
3.1.5
OpenDocument 1.0 Provides for Specific Derivative Works. The same
notification paragraph in the OpenDocument specification has the following
language with regard to derivative works of the specification (cf.
3.1.3):
... Derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included
on all such ... derivative works.
3.1.6 I am not
clear on suitable ways to preface the requisite copyright notice. I
can determine that later. The most interesting case for me has to do with
making an HTML hyper-document version of the OpenDocument Specification.
This would provide a version that can be linked to, tied to annotations and
errata, and more-conveniently referenced and navigated, including on a
reader's desktop, than the PDF-format official copy of the specification.
There's a non-OpenDocument OpenOffice.org version of the document that might
provide a good start after translation to OpenDocument and transformation of
the resulting XML.
3.1.7 I have no problem with honoring these conditions exactly.
Mostly I do not have to distribute copies of the specifications, whether
OpenDocument 1.0 or the Microsoft specifications. I will refer to
them, and people can obtain their own copies as desired. The
possibility of a browser-navigable version of OpenDocument 1.0 is a nice
nfoWare exercise at some point and it makes an easier way to
refer to passages of the specification in discussions and related
contributions.
There are digital versions of the individual schemas that apply to the
respective open-format definitions. These raise interesting cases.
3.2.1 The Microsoft
Schemas carry notices and licenses in the same form as the specifications
(Microsoft 2003c).
Notice is carried in the schemas and there is the same exclusion of
derivative works as for the specification documents (cf.
Appendix A2). However, reproduction
is permitted.
3.2.2 The OpenDocument
schemas carry copyright notices only (OASIS 2005d;
2005e; 2005f). There is no other
explanation or link to information in the downloadable copies of the Relax-NG
schemas.
3.2.3 I had been
concerned about appeal to the schemas when repurposing material of the
standardize formats. Beside
redistributing these schemas as separate files (permitted for the Microsoft
ones), I had wondered about the prospects for
derivative use of the schemas when what are intended to be the same elements
are used in separate contexts, such as search results, document-management
metadata, and so on. I think it is easier than that:
-
3.2.3.1
For OOX, XML Schema is used, with the schemas
expressed in XML. The individual schemas can potentially be
referenced wholesale using imports into other XML Schemas that rely on OOX elements and attributes. Elements defined under the OOX
schemas can simply appear in any XML document in places where any
element is allowed, provided that the appropriate namespaces are
declared. There are many technicalities that I have not
explored, but the ability to fuse elements defined in the OOX schema set
into other formats and their schemas seems available for special
purposes, while always relying on the unaltered reference XML Schemas in
so doing.
-
3.2.3.2
For ODF, Relax-NG is used, with the schemas
expressed in XML. In contrast with the XML Schema multi-tiered
approach (W3C 2004a), Relax-NG has no convention
for associating XML document elements with Relax-NG patterns to which
they conform. OpenDocument elements can be used in documents
defined with different Relax-NG schemas simply via anyElement
provisions of Relax-NG. There are similar ways to allow use
of attributes defined for OpenDocument. More precise incorporation
of OpenDocument patterns can be
obtained by including the OpenDocument Relax-NG grammar as a sub-grammar
of another grammar, preserving the namespaces and over-riding the start
element as appropriate. Those OpenDocument patterns reachable in
accordance with the global grammar are made patterns of the resulting
(conceptual) schema (Clark & Murata 2001b).
The strict schema for OpenDocument is defined
over the normative schema using exactly such
provisions of Relax-NG.
-
3.2.3.3 Interchange
and Repurposing Material. Although
somewhat cumbersome, these usages of elements and attributes in other
(XML) formats are part of the specified usage of
Relax-NG and XML Schema definitions. The schema systems allow
formats under one schema to have defined usage in XML documents other than
ones (if any) conforming to the single schema alone. The
other-format instances might be
arrived at by transformation operations or other means. It is also
the case that the creation of interchange arrangements could involve
creating XML Schemas for OpenDocument 1.0 formats and Relax-NG Schemas
for OOX formats. It would be surprising for there to be much
objection. Each schema mechanism can allow elements defined for the other format under
wide "anyElement" provisions, at a minimum.
-
3.2.3.4 Being
Careful. Although one can imagine objections based on
derivative-work prohibitions, it is difficult to imagine freely distributing the
electronic form required for computer processing and simultaneously
forbidding that processing, something that is not part of the
copyrightable subject matter in any case (4.1.4). The originators of both OOX and ODF
promote the repurposing and transformational prospects for those
formats. It would be strange to not allow re-use of specific
elements when honoring the specification for that element is
intended. At the same time, the practices discussed here are certainly
not covered by typical statements of conformance requirements for the
formats and their processing, and one can't automatically expect protection under the royalty-free patent licenses
and related covenants (section 3.3.3). A
recent clarification of the Microsoft licensing approach suggests to me
that subsetting and supersetting the format, while preserving the Open
Office XML specifications and schemas, will be tolerated under the
covenant (Microsoft 2005j). This
would appear to make OOX and ODF equally adaptable as far as format
application is concerned.
3.3.1 The format
specifications do not specify implementations. The OpenDocument
1.0 specification specifies conformance of XML documents to the format.
There are also conditions on conforming applications that read, process, and
write the format. But there is no condition on implementations, and
the requirements for conformance are quite liberal (even loose, in some
respects: cf. Table 3-1). A public
specification of OOX suitable as a public standard for an open format is not
yet available for review, and these observations are not meant to imply any
comparison of OpenDocument provisions with as-yet undocumented conformance conditions
for OOX. The common feature is that interpretation of the elements
of the formats will need to be defined, but how those are
implemented/preserved in the behavior of computer software won't be
specified.
3.3.2 There are Patent
Policy Statements applicable to both formats. Each format
has a blanket royalty-free patent-license declaration. Sun
Microsystems provides one for OpenDocument along with a covenant not
to sue (OASIS 2005b). Microsoft provides a
royalty-free license for implementations of the Office 2003 Reference
Schemas and their successors (Microsoft 2003b;
2005d). Microsoft recently added a
covenant not to sue to its current and proposed licenses (2005f).
Neither party has identified any of its patents that might apply. If
anyone else holds patents that might apply to implementations of these
formats, they have been silent on the matter.
3.3.3 These
licenses apply only to software that implements the formats (3.5.1.14).
This leads to the interesting topic of providing notice that software
implementing the formats might work in ways that infringe on someone else's
patents, and that adapting the software for some other purpose might make
the royalty-free licenses (or protective covenants) unavailable.
3.3.4 Unfortunately,
any software might violate patents. It is not customary to
remind software developers of that fact. The closest we usually come
is with disclaimers and requests for notification, as in the OpenDocument
specification (OASIS 2005c, Appendix E):
"OASIS takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to pertain
to the implementation or use of the technology described in this
document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or
might not be available; neither does it represent that it has made any
effort to identify any such rights. Information on OASIS's procedures
with respect to rights in OASIS specifications can be found at the OASIS
website. ...
"OASIS invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights
which may cover technology that may be required to implement this
specification. ... "
3.3.5 However,
when there is a royalty-free license or other covenant that protects
implementers of the formats with regard to a specific (potential)
patent holder, it seems polite to say so, whether a statement is required or
not. Unfortunately, the situation is not quite that simple:
-
3.3.5.1
Microsoft requires that a specific notice be included in software for
which the conditions of the license are invoked (2003b).
Sun Microsystems makes no such requirement.
-
3.3.5.2
None of the licenses (and the covenants, to stretch a point) are
sublicensable. If they were, it would not broaden the licenses
according to Rosen (2005, p. 88). Either
way, the royalty-free licenses do not license the software, and that is
different than sublicensing as usually meant with regard to derivative
works of open-source software.
-
3.3.5.3
Although none of these licenses are directly for software under any
form of open-source or closed-source licensing, there are claims (Galli
2005) that the Microsoft royalty-free license conditions will make
any software for which the royalty-free license is claimed incompatible with the GPL (FSF
2002; Rosen 2005, pp. 243-251). It is
not clear what legal principle is being put forward as the basis for
that conclusion unless it is the requirement to carry notice into
derivative works (Microsoft 2003b).
With the covenant not to sue, this arrangement is considered good enough
by some legal experts (Berlind 2005).
-
3.3.5.4
Neither Microsoft's nor Sun's royalty-free licenses and covenants
involve a promise to sue, so it would appear that there is no
difficulty with producing and distributing open-source software under a
suitable license that satisfies the Open Source Definition, whether or
not a GPL-compatible one (OSI 2005a).
This section presents my personal approach to packaging, distribution,
and licensing of materials subject to terms and conditions placed on the OOX
and ODF specifications, schemas, and any related software. I offer it
as an example of one consistent approach. It may be incompatible with
requirements that you have.
3.4.1 Everything in Plain Site, Known in Advance. I have
simple principles that apply to my
packaging and distribution of works. I apply the same principles with
regard to the open-format specifications, schemas, and software that
implements the specifications to any extent:
-
3.4.1.1
Works are packaged so that the provenance of all elements is preserved
and all licenses are honored.
-
3.4.1.2
Recipients of works from me are always informed of the provenance of the
work, conditions on the work, and how that impacts them as a recipient
of the work (e.g., with regard to their assent to terms of a contract).
-
3.4.1.3
All conditions that might impact or limit an intended use by a recipient
are made known without requiring the recipient to have first acquired a
copy of the work.
-
3.4.1.4
In general, I want people to be able to make straightforward use of
works provided by me. By applying very simple practices,
recipients can be unconcerned whether or not their use constitutes creation of a derivative work.
The licensing that I will use for
ODMA contributions illustrates this approach.
3.4.2
Distribution of Specifications. The specifications are
redistributable under already-available licenses. This makes
distribution easy:
-
3.4.2.1
Standalone availability and redistribution of the specifications can
occur as allowed. All of the notice requirements can be satisfied
by providing the specifications intact.
-
3.4.2.2
So long as the specifications are readily available as on-line
resources, it is preferable to link to such authoritative sources.
In addition, there may be a cached copy so that the precise version of
the specification that is referenced in some way can be retrieved as
needed.
-
3.4.2.3
For secondary sources, including cached versions, there will be
notification (1) that there are permissions on the distribution of the
work, (2) there are limitation on the work, (3) there are preferable
authoritative sources and (4) there may be more-recent versions.
There may be an attestation concerning how the work was obtained and how
its provenance is preserved.
-
3.4.2.4
If specifications are included in compilations having
more-generous license terms, they will be further-isolated from other
material in a way that makes the existence and applicability of the
separate conditions clear and unambiguous. I will also
ensure that the manifest and license statements for the overall package
clearly identify the pre-existing elements that carry different
licenses, especially more-restrictive ones. Finally, if the
compilation is available for on-line download, it should be
straightforward to avoid downloading the specification when it is
unwanted.
3.4.3 Derivative Works of
Specifications. The OpenDocument 1.0 specification permits
derivative works for a limited purpose (section 3.1.5).
To ensure honoring of the license conditions and to avoid inappropriate
secondary derivatives, the
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives
license is appropriate for the derivative work. The
distribution of such derivatives would be safe-guarded in the same manner as
the original specifications, with identification of the location of the
authoritative version (section 3.4.2).
3.4.4 Distribution of Schemas.
There are two different cases:
-
3.4.4.1
The Microsoft Schemas may be reproduced and also incorporated in
compilations in exactly the same way as the specifications (3.4.2).
-
3.4.4.2
There is no licensing of copyright rights for the OpenDocument schemas,
although digital versions are provided for down-load (OASIS
2005d; 2005e; 2005f).
My approach will be to rely on the schemas incorporated in the
OpenDocument 1.0 specification and to refer to the schemas otherwise.
If some procedure or software requires presence of one of the schemas, I
will provide instructions on how to obtain the material and have it be
accessible to the procedure or software.
3.4.5
Derivative Works of Schemas. There is no provision for derivative
works of schemas for OOX or ODF. This means to me that application of
validation procedures using the schemas must not result in creation of
reproductions (for the ODF schemas) or of modified works for any of the
schemas (3.2.3).
3.4.6 Software
Implementations of the Formats. The specifications and their
licenses place no conditions on software that implements (accepts or
produces) the formats. No one who is identified as possibly having
patents that might be infringed by implementations has indicated any
intention to assert their patent rights. However,
-
3.4.6.1
The royalty-free patent license offered by Microsoft requires inclusion
of explicit notice. The covenant not to sue does not require any
notice. I would include the applicable notice and also provide
notification of the covenant. I would do that to provide notice
that the protections of the license and the covenant are not extended to
other applications of the software. I would isolate those
elements of OOX-implementing software for which the license and covenant
are being relied upon, treating that portion as a separate constituent
of a combined work.
-
3.4.6.2
The royalty-free patent license and covenant offered by Sun Microsystems
have no notice requirement. Nevertheless, I would include an
appropriate notice, for the same reasons as for the Microsoft license (3.4.6.1).
I would also isolate those elements of ODF-implementing software for
which the license and covenant are being relied upon, treating that
portion as a separate constituent of a combined work. (It is
conceivable that there are conditions where the same software would be
involved in implementing both OOX and ODF and other formats as well.)
-
3.4.6.3
Appropriate notice will be provided by the executing software concerning
the applicability of the royalty-free licenses and the conditions under
which they apply to use of the software. This will be part of a
blanket notice concerning any knowledge of patents and other conditions
that may be of concern with regard to operation of the software.
3.4.7
Derivative Works of the Software Implementations. For any
implementations that I make of software that implements the formats, I
intent to provide open-source licenses. Typically, that means
using the BSD template,
as done for
ODMA. If chain of title and grant of patent license can be
asserted, I will sometimes use the Academic Free License (Rosen
2005). In any case, appropriate warnings about the licenses and
covenants and claiming their applicability will be given for the isolated
components. There will be instructions that must be followed for
notifying users, as in 3.4.6.3. In many
respects, these are natural outgrowths of patterns for
TROSTing software.
3.5.1 There is a
great deal of chatter about these open-format specifications, what they
(will) make available, and the degree to which they are open or not. I
have made side-by-side comparisons based on the specifications themselves
and the official license statements that are available at this point in time
(2005-12-19):
Table 3-1. Comparison of Specifications and
Licenses: ODF and OOX
Table 3-1:
ODF & OOX Approaches Compared |
OASIS Open Document Format (ODF)
|
Microsoft Office Open XML (OOX) Format
|
|
with Sun IPR notice of 2002-12-11
|
with Sun Patent Statement of 2005-09-29
|
with 2005-11-22 covenant not to sue and
2005-12-16 ECMA Submission
|
with Microsoft Schema Reference
licenses (copyright
and patent)
|
|
3.5.1.1 Type of specification |
for an electronic-document format (706 pages,
June 2005) |
for an electronic-document format
(1901-page technical draft Ecma submission
as well as white
papers, preview, and
Office 2003 materials as of
2005-12-19) |
|
3.5.1.2 progenitors |
OpenOffice.org (OOo) XML |
Microsoft Office 97 through Microsoft
Office 2003 default format and details |
|
3.5.1.3 derivative work of specification |
solely for discussion and
explanation |
excluded
[future: ECMA standards typically have no notices, are public and
freely available and are automatically copyrighted;
ISO/IEC specifications have all rights reserved and sometimes are
available electronically without fee] |
| Schema Approach |
OASIS Open Document Format (ODF)
|
Microsoft Office Open XML (OOX) Format
|
|
3.5.1.4 schema methodology |
Relax-NG schema definition (504k) |
XSD: XML Schema
Definitions (following guide and
preview approach) |
|
3.5.1.5 schema
approach |
One normative (relaxed),
one (non-normative) strict, including one Zip
packaging specification and schema for manifests. Optionally, single or multiple XML
documents serve as parts in the ODF representation of a complete
OpenDocument document. |
family of XSDs cover the
package, common elements, and product-specific structures for Word,
Excel, and PowerPoint. Multiple XML documents serve as parts
and relationships of parts in the OOX representation of a complete
Microsoft Office document. The container approach is part of
an abstract protocol (OPC) in which using a Zip package is one underlying
implementation. |
|
3.5.1.6 licensing of schemas |
none stated (Sun Microsystems and
OASIS Open copyright notices in the files) |
not determined [current
licenses applicable for now] |
same notice and copyright license as on documentation |
| Compatibility & Conformance |
OASIS Open Document Format (ODF)
|
Microsoft Office Open XML (OOX) Format
|
|
3.5.1.7 specified compatibility |
some (forks earlier OpenOffice.org format);
format support now claimed for some recent software releases;
interchange and degree of conforming feature implementations remains
to be assessed; no conformance-assessment mechanism has been
announced (2005-10-09) |
round-trip fidelity with Microsoft
Office binary-format documents, Office 2000-2003 and Office "12";
assumption: down-level behavior appears to be based on current default-formats
approach (e.g., via "Word 97-2003 Document"
format). |
|
3.5.1.8 defined
conformance |
yes |
beyond the
hint at (Microsoft 2005j) pertaining
to forgivable uses of the schemas, the ECMA base-document submission
has a rigorous definition of conformance and behavior of consumers
and producers that is strongly directed to document-interchange
fidelity (Ecma 2005). |
|
3.5.1.9 minimal
conformance |
some preservation
requirements (MUSTs) and allowances (MAYs and SHOULDs). No minimum floor
or "core" of elements and
attributes is required of all implementations although this seems to
have been required in the OASIS TC charter. |
The Ecma TC45
base-document submission defines strictly conforming consumers and
producers as using only required features, always producing valid
documents, and only consuming valid strictly-conforming documents.
The XML documents are required to be in Unicode using UTF8 and UTF16
encodings. |
|
3.5.1.10
foreign-element tolerance |
specific provisions for
allowance and preservation of foreign elements, under
non-duplication of ODF provisions (with it unclear what happens when ODF is
extended) |
The Ecma TC45
base-document submission defines (non-strictly) conforming producers
and consumers and their required and permitted behaviors on
encounter of recognized and unrecognized extensions. |
|
3.5.1.11 custom
content |
not determined |
specific
allowance for custom XML incorporation started with Office 2003.
The Ecma TC45 base-document submission addresses custom content in
the XML parts and the presence of additional content in the packages
that carry Office Open XML format. |
|
3.5.1.12
underspecified features
|
Cursory 2005-12-02
re-review identifies these:
"2.2 Document Metadata" with arbitrary (as opposed to
specifically-formed user-defined) elements; "2.4.6 Cursor Position Setting" and any
other introductions of markup-embedded processing instructions;
"6.3.10 Expression Fields" and other areas appealing to unidentified
namespaces for formulae in the content of attributes (6.7.6 for
text, 8.1.3 for table cells); "15 Formatting Properties" permitting
any attributes and elements under all
elements, along with application-determined defaults; "2.5.1 Scripts" again for appealing to
unidentified namespaces, absence of script-language representation
in the content of an attribute, and no identification of the
document-model by which the script interacts with the document and
anything else (also 6.6.6). The impact of this on conformance
verification and contractual-specification of OpenDocument
compliance is unclear. The coining of styles and formats may
be more problematic, as may be reliance on macros and DDE.
More systematic analysis is required. |
Section 2,
Conformance, of the Ecma TC45 base-document submission asserts that
there is no undefined or unspecified behavior for
strictly-conformant producers and consumers. |
|
Patent Freedom Approach |
OASIS Open Document Format (ODF)
|
Microsoft Office Open XML (OOX) Format
|
|
with Sun IPR notice of 2002-12-11
|
with Sun Patent Statement of 2005-09-29
|
with 2005-11-22 covenant not to sue and future ECMA/ISO Submission
|
with Microsoft Schema Reference
licenses (copyright
and patent)
|
|
3.5.1.13 royalty-free patent licensing |
Sun
Microsystems "essential
claims" royalty-free license |
Sun Microsystems will not
enforce any of its patents, present or future |
covenant not to sue
applies, with or without following license conditions |
Microsoft "necessary
claims" royalty-free license |
|
3.5.1.14 patent-license scope limitation |
only where unavoidable in order to
implement the specification, and only to implement the specification |
any implementation of ODF
1.0 and subsequent versions in which Sun participates to an extent
that OASIS rules apply in regard to IPR |
under the covenant, those portions of a
software product that read and write the format |
only where unavoidable in those portions of a software
product that read and write files that are fully compliant with the
specification of the schemas |
|
3.5.1.15 patent reciprocity required |
Yes. |
No. License is
terminated for any party that attempts to assert patent rights
against any ODF implementation. |
No. Suing Microsoft or
affiliates for infringement of a related patent claim will terminate
the license for the complaining party. The covenant not to sue
will also be voided with regard to the suing party. |
|
3.5.1.16 patent-license notice |
none required |
license usable but not
required under the covenant |
specific statement
required |
3.5.2 The end-games may arrive at interchange, interoperability,
inter-convertibility, and independent document processor
implementations, but the journeys are different.
In discussing copyright and licensing of copyright, it is important to
understand the way that copyright is defined, what the exclusive (assignable
and licensable) rights are, and what important terms such as collective
work, compilation, and derivative work are in the language of copyright
codes themselves. All of the following material is taken
directly from the United States Copyright Code (LoC 2000).
The selections are chosen to be informative about the copyright treatment of
software, specifications, and documentation. The source material
should be consulted for additional considerations, including special
exceptions. Citation forms beginning "17 U.S.C" are to sections of Title 17 of the
United States Code and are covered in the Copyright Code document. The
web page for access to that material should be consulted for recent changes.
4.1.1 The Basic Condition. There is a minimum, general
qualification for being subject matter in which copyright can subsist (17 U.S.C. § 102(a)):
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title
[17 U.S.C.], in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible
medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can
be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device.
4.1.2 Fixing in a Tangible Medium.
There is a specific definition of what it takes for a work to be "fixed" (17 U.S.C. § 101):
A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its
embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the
author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more
than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both,
that are being transmitted, is “fixed” for purposes of this title if a
fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.
4.1.3 Computer
Software is a Literary Work. As subject matter of copyright,
computer software is treated as a literary work
(17 U.S.C. § 101, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)):
“Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works,
expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or
indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as
books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or
cards, in which they are embodied.
4.1.4 Not All Aspects of Copyrighted
Works Are Subject Matter of Copyright. It is important to
understand that not everything about the work (or that the work is about) is
subject matter of copyright (17 U.S.C. § 102(b)):
In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
4.1.5 Only Your Authorship is
Original for Your Copyright. With regard to the copyrightable
subject matter, the copyright is only for that part that is original to you
and there is a clear line between that and preexisting material
(17 U.S.C. § 103):
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102
includes compilations [4.3.2] and derivative
works [4.3.1], but protection for a work
employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not
extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used
unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the
preexisting material.
4.2.1 The List of Six.
The copyright owner (the author's employer in the case of a work made for
hire) has six exclusive rights with regard to the subject matter
(17 U.S.C. § 106):
Subject to sections 107 through 121 [creating a variety of
exceptions], the owner of copyright under this title has the
exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works [4.3.1]
based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by
rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other
audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and
choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion
picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work
publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
4.2.2 Public Display and
Performance. Public display and performance has specific meaning
for subject matter of copyright (17 U.S.C. § 101):
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or
at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a
normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered;
or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or
display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the
public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of
the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive
it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or
at different times.
4.2.3 Exceptions and
Fair Use. Non-public display and performance is an exception to
the exclusive rights of copyright owners. There are other exceptions
granted to libraries (for archiving and preservation), to owners of software
(for backup), and for certain special classroom performances. Perhaps
of greatest importance in the case of specifications, documentation,
software, and perhaps schemas is the fair use. There is no automatic
determination of fair use. This portion of the code limits the
applicability of fair use but leaves actual determination of the bounds
within that to be resolved in the courts on a case-by-case basis.
(17 U.S.C. § 101):
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [for
exclusive rights, see 4.2.1], the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding
of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
These terms are used heavily in discussion of open-source licenses.
They have specific meaning under copyright law and it is important to use
the terms consistently. The use of a preexisting copyrighted work in
any of these ways is one of the exclusive rights of the preexisting work's
copyright owner (section 4.2.1).
4.3.1 Derivative Works
(17 U.S.C. § 101):
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”.
4.3.2 Compilations.
Publication of compilations involves reproducing of works. A
compilation is different than a derivative work, though it might contain
derivative works and it might have derivative works (but see
4.1.5). Specifically
(17 U.S.C. § 101):
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling
of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or
arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an
original work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective
works.
4.3.3 Collective
Works. Collective works are treated as
compilations (4.3.2). (17 U.S.C. § 101):
A “collective work” is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled
into a collective whole.
Microsoft proposes to make the OOX formats available under the same terms
as existing (pre-OOX) Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas.
Current materials, license information, and previews are available for on-line
access and download:
-
A1.1
Office 2003: XML Reference Schemas. The package installs on Windows 2000 SP3 and later. There is no registration requirement. No EULA is presented. Click-through acceptance of a license is not required. Installation on my Windows XP configuration adds a folder at “Start | All Programs | Microsoft Office 2003 Developer Resources | Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas” which organizes 24 XML Schema Definitions (in folders of
.xsd files) along with one documentation file in Microsoft HTML Help (.chm) format.
-
A1.2
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas License Overview This
resource page provides a link to the legal-notice instructions for use of the schemas and their related specifications, to the
patent license agreement, and to
additional provisions that are introduced from time to time. So
far, all changes have been
additive and had the net effect of relaxing
the conditions under which licenses are available.
-
A1.3
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas
Product Information
page (undated version updated periodically). In addition to other elements, this “portal” onto the reference schemas provides links to an
overview of the reference schemas, to a Frequently-Asked Question (FAQ) page on the reference schemas, and to a
Jean Paoli memorandum celebrating
the announcement of the Microsoft Office Open XML Formats (what I have been calling OOX here). In November, 2005, coverage of the
proposed submission for ECMA standardization was added.
-
A1.4
Office XML Development Center. This equivalent of a
portal for developers on the MSDN on-line site, provides access to all
current developer materials and other guidance.
-
A1.5 Office "12" Open
XML Materials. Preview materials are available. When
Office "12" moves to public beta 2, in 2006, there may be more
information. For now there are these:
A2.1 At the bottom of the Office XML Software Development Kit web pages and the HTML Help pages, there is a consistent notice
(Microsoft 2003a):
-
A2.1.1 A Microsoft Corporation copyright notice.
-
A2.1.2 Accompanying text:
“Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp”
A2.2 In the XML Schema files themselves, there is also license text. The text is the same as that in the
reference HTML version in the on-line MSDN Library linked
just above. the following declaration is typical (from
visio.xsd dated 2004-03-04-10:39):
Permission to copy, display and distribute the contents of this document (the “Specification”), in any medium for any purpose without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following notice on ALL copies of the Specification, or portions thereof, that you make:
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Permission to copy, display and distribute this document is available at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true.
No right to create modifications or derivatives of this Specification is granted herein.
There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. This patent license is available at this location:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp.
THE SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND MICROSOFT MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
MICROSOFT WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIFICATION.
The name and trademarks of Microsoft may NOT be used in any manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the Specification or its contents without specific, written prior permission. Title to copyright in the Specification will at all times remain with Microsoft. No other rights are granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
There are a variety of on-line resources with coverage of the
Microsoft Open Office XML Format (OOX for short).
-
A3.1
Brian
Jones: Office XML Formats. Discussions about XML in Office
and the Microsoft Office Open XML File Formats. An MSDN Blog.
-
A3.2
Microsoft Makes XML the File Format for the Next Version of Microsoft
Office. Q&A: Senior Vice President Steven Sinofsky
explains how making XML the default file format is likely to help
customers cut costs for data storage and bandwidth, improve security and
boost data recovery. Microsoft Press Pass, June 1, 2005. The
sidebar provides useful links to available white papers and the initial
press release.
-
A3.3
Brian Jones – New Office file formats announced.
MSDN Channel 9 video interview by Robert Scoble. 2005 June 1,
21:18 pdt. This video conveys much of the excitement of the
developers for what is being accomplished in this work.
-
A3.4
Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas Frequently Asked Questions.
Microsoft Office System Product Information, Office XML Reference
Schemas Licensing. 2003 November 17, updated 2005 January 27.
-
A3.5
The
Future of Microsoft Office: Be the First to Know.
Microsoft Office Online. Set up in time for the 2005 June 6
kick-off of the Microsoft Tech-Ed 2005 Conference, this site accumulates more material over time.
It and other locations were updated in conjunction with the Microsoft
Professional Developer's Conference in September 2005, for example. The available white papers and an
extensive FAQ on the new format are already available. There is
also an RSS feed for receiving notices of new material as it is made
available.
-
A3.6
Steve Sinovsky open letter Announcing Submission of Office 12 XML
Formats to ECMA International for Standardization.
Microsoft Office Online. Accessed 2005-12-22T18:17Z. This
memo proposes submission to ECMA International with eventual submission
to ISO, a step already taken with the C# programming language and the
Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) from .NET. The
irrevocable covenant not to sue is
introduced as a way of reducing any lingering uncertainty in the
availability of the formats for broad usage.
-
A3.7
XPS
Team Blog: XML Paper Specification and the Open Packaging Conventions.
An important component of the Office Open XML format is the abstracted
Open Packaging Conventions that are employed for OOX and as a generic,
publicly-usable container model. Although the specifications are
under tight review-and-feedback only licenses at this point, they are
promised to become available under the same licensing as OOX and,
presumably, will be submitted to ECMA along with OOX. This
blog is an useful place to learn about the march toward public
usability, sometime around when either Windows Vista or Office "12"
ship. This blog and that of individual team members tend to focus
on XPS. There is a nice compilation of resources by team
member
Feng Yuan.
-
A3.8
XML Paper Specification (XPS) Developer Forum. This MSDN
Forum is part of the on-line discussions of Windows Vista Development.
Here there are specific discussions about features of XPS and,
presumably, OPC although most of the attention is on the impact of XPS
on digital-document flows and interchange considerations. It
appears that XPS is tied to the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)
which is provisionally usable as part of WinFX (in pre-beta
Community Technology Preview -- CTP -- release) for Windows XP SP2
and onward at this point. Microsoft Passport is required for
participation on these forums.
-
Berlind, David (2005).
- Top Open Source Lawyer Blesses New Terms on Microsoft's XML File
Format. Between the Lines: The Blog for Discriminating Tech
Buyers, Blogs section, ZDNet, 2005 November 28, 8:02am. Available
at <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2192>.
-
Bradner, Scott O. (1996).
-
The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3. IETF
Best Current Practice 9, RFC 2026, Network Working Group, Internet
Engineering Task Force. October. Available at <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt>
- Clark, James., Murata, Makato, eds.
(2001a)
-
RELAX NG Specification. Committee Specification, 2001 December 3, RELAX NG TC, Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA. Available
at <http://oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/spec-20011203.html>
(accessed 2005-10-10).
There is a tutorial that is very useful in
understanding RELAX NG schemas (Clark & Murata
2001b). Although the OASIS OpenDocument 1.0 specification
cites this on-line document, the ISO standard is freely available (ISO/IEC
2003).
- Clark, James., Murata Makato, eds. (2001b)
- RELAX NG Tutorial. Committee Specification, 2001 December 3,
RELAX NG TC, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA. Available at <http://oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/tutorial-20011203.html>
(accessed 2005-11-23).
-
Ecma (2005).
- Office Open XML Document Interchange Specification: Base Document.
Submitted to Ecma TC45 by Microsoft December 2005. Document
Ecma/TC45/2005/008. Available at <http://www.ecma-international.org/activities/Office%20Open%20XML%20Formats/>
(accessed 2005-12-19)
The base document is available in Zip format
(9.7 MB containing the 14MB PDF). The PDF is available directly, for
those who prefer that, and the slides of the General Assembly
presentation (2.3MB PowerPoint with notes or 2.0 MB PDF) are also
available. The 1901-page document has an active (click-the-links)
table of contents and is relatively easy to navigate and to search.
Section ("clause") 2 contains rigorous
conformance definition and describes its important purposes.
-
FSF (2002).
- Various Licenses and Comments About Them. GNU Project, Free
Software Foundation (Boston, MA: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002).
Available at <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>
(accessed 2005-12-04)
-
Galli, Peter (2005).
- MS Office XML Formats Not OK with GNU. Linux & Open Source
News, eWeek.com (2005 June 17). Available at <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1829355,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594>.
The statement on which the fuss is based is one
attributed to an interview with Richard Stallman: «The conditions imposed by the current license governing the use of the formats are "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 told eWEEK in an interview.»
Notice the leap from a license with a limited applicability to the
presumption that it prohibits anything else, yet the same logic applies
to anyone's offering of a similarly-contingent royalty-free license (or a covenant)
whether there is a requirement for notice or not. It's the license
that's contingent, not the modifiability of the software.
- ISO/IEC (2003).
- Information Technology — Document Schema Definition Language (DSDL)
— Part 2: Regular-grammar-based validation - RELAX NG, First
edition 2003-12-01, International Standard ISO/IEC 19757-2:2003(E).
Freely available as Zipped Adobe PDF file at <http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c037605_ISO_IEC_19757-2_2003(E).zip>
(accessed 2005-11-22).
-
LoC (2000).
- Copyright Law of the United States and Related Laws Contained in
Title 17 of the United States Code. Circular 92, U. S. Copyright
Office, Library of Congress (Washington, DC: April 2000). Adobe
PDF file available via <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/>
(accessed 2005-12-05).
-
-
Microsoft (2003a).
- Legal Notice: Microsoft Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas.
MSDN On-Line, Microsoft Software Developer Network, Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond, WA (undated). Available at <http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp?frame=true>.
-
Microsoft (2003b).
- Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License. File
Formats and Schema Licensing, Intellectual Property, About Microsoft,
Microsoft.com, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA (2003-12-03; updated
2005-01-27). Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp>.
This license requires explicit notice in source code,
documentation, and licenses. The license and notices must require
that all copies and derivative works preserve the notice. This
last appears to require preservation of the notice whether or not the
conditions of the license apply. This is not, however, a narrowing
of the license in the sense prohibited by the GPL, although it certainly
suggests that the original work cannot be a derivative work under the
GPL. The remedy that I propose (and
would employ in any case) is to minimize and segregate the (original)
software that implements the format such that non-derivative substitutes can be made when the
terms and conditions of the license are unacceptable or have simply
become
inapplicable. This says nothing about whether or not Microsoft
might have patents that apply to the derivative work (let alone the
original work), merely that the license is not being accepted.
-
Microsoft (2003c).
- Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. 5.56 MB Microsoft
Installer file xsdref.msi, Microsoft Download Center,
Microsoft.com, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond WA (version 4,
2005-01-14). Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=fe118952-3547-420a-a412-00a2662442d9&displaylang=en>.
-
Microsoft (2005a).
- Microsoft Office Open XML Format Architecture Guide.
Preview for Developers, White Paper, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond, WA. 249kb Microsft Word 97-2003 Document,
2005-06-03. Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/devpaper.mspx>
(accessed 2005-10-08).
-
Microsoft (2005b).
- Microsoft Office Open XML Formats Guide. New File
Formats for "Office 12," White Paper, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft
Corporation, Redmond WA. 114kb Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document,
2005-05-31. Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/fileguide.mspx>
(accessed 2005-10-08)
-
Microsoft (2005c).
- Office "12" XML Schema Reference - PDC 2005
Preview, version 092205, Download Details, Microsoft Download Center, Web Page,
Microsoft, Redmond, WA: 2005-09-22. Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=15805380-F2C0-4B80-9AD1-2CB0C300AEF9&displaylang=en>
(accessed 2005-10-08).
There is a 1252 kB Zip File as well as
links to other resources on Office XML. There is also a
self-installing version. The HTML documentation in the Zip file
requires that the contents be unpacked into a file-system directory for
access and viewing. The current licensing approach is covered.
- Microsoft (2005d).
- Open Packaging Conventions Licensing Overview.
Working Document, Specifications and License Downloads, XML Paper
Specification (XPS), WHDC, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA. Web
page, available at <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/pkglicense.mspx>
(accessed 2005-10-08).
The Office XML Reference Schema license is being used
as the basis for other licensings. This page provides a convenient
description for the form being considered for the important new packaging
technique that is used for the OX formats in Office "12" and for the Microsoft XML Paper
Specification (XPS), first known as "Metro." -- dh:2005-10-09
The "covenant not to sue" in this proposal is not the
one that has been introduced for the Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas.
-- dh:2005-11-22
- Microsoft (2005e).
- Open Packaging Conventions: Specification and Reference Guide,
version 0.75 pre-release draft. Microsoft Corporation, Redmond,
WA, 2005-09-13. Available for download in a Microsoft-signed
self-extracting Zip file under cover of a
Technical Document Agreement at <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspkg.mspx>.
Also see XPS 0.75 (Microsoft 2005i).
-
Microsoft (2005f).
- Microsoft Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas.
Office XML Reference Schemas Licensing, Microsoft Office System Product
Information, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA (undated). Web page, available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/covenant.mspx>
(accessed 2005-11-22). Referenced in the open
letter from Steve Sinofsky, this covenant is in effect as part of
Office 2003 XML Reference Schema
licensing.
-
Microsoft (2005g).
- Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas License Overview. Office XML
Reference Schemas Licensing, Microsoft Office System Product
Information, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA (undated). Web page, available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/licenseoverview.mspx>
(accessed 2005-11-22).
The November 2005 additional covenant and an explanation of
how it applies to the previous licensing
is included, along with links to elements of the previous licensing
requirements. The licenses remain in effect and usable.
Briefly, the covenant is not a license but a commitment on the part of
Microsoft not to assert any claims against implementations of the
formats except for an user of the formats that asserts their own patent
claims against implementation of the formats and sues Microsoft or one
of its affiliates. The previous license terms remain available and
exercisable by implementers.
- These licenses are concrete in that they
apply to existing, specific licensed works. In addition, these
license are proposed as the models for future licenses of the Office
"12" Open XML Schemas and related initiatives, such as the
Open Packaging Conventions that are used
as part of the Office "12" Open XML formats.
-
Microsoft (2005h).
- New Covenant vs. Old License for Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas.
Office XML Reference Schemas Licensing, Microsoft Office System Product
Information, Microsoft Office Online, Microsoft Corporation,
Redmond, WA (undated). Web page, available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/newvsold.mspx>
(accessed 2005-11-22).
This page under the License
Overview describes what the covenant provides. The covenant
can be relied upon immediately in applications of the Office 2003 XML Reference
Schemas. The royalty-free license arrangement continues to be
usable and available for those who prefer it. The covenant applies
whether or not the royalty-free license is employed.
- Microsoft (2005i).
- XML Paper Specification, version 0.75 pre-release draft. 2005
September 13 update, 2.25MB Zip self-extracting file, Available
for download under read-review-feedback Technical
Document Agreement at <http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpsspec.mspx>
(accessed 2005-09-24).
This application of the Open Packaging Conventions is
important as an illustrative use of OPC and for its relationship to
Office "12" and other technologies being developed along the
Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) parade to
Windows Vista. In document-management, record-management and
document-processing regimes, OPC is important, as are both XPS and
the OOX formats.
-
Microsoft (2005j).
- Ecma International Standardization of Open XML File Formats
Frequently Asked Questions. Tech Central, The Future of Microsoft
Office: Get Information About the Next Release, Microsoft Office Online.
Available at <http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/ecmafaq.mspx>
(accessed 2005-12-18).
The benefit of the covenant not to sue is clarified:
"Anyone is free to work with a subset of the specifications, and anyone
is free to create extensions to the specifications. A 'conformant' use
is simply one that does not modify the specification."
-
Milton, Vicki (2005).
- Re: Public Level of the XPS and OPC Specifications. Fifth Post
on the thread, "I
hope this format starts to leak before the next OS,"
XML Paper Specification (XPS) discussion forum,
Windows Vista Development Forum Group,
MSDN
Communities on-line forums, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA:
2005-11-29T01:44. Available at <http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=149951&SiteID=1>.
Vicki Milton of the Microsoft development team
clarifies that the Technical Document Agreements (TDAs) are not
non-disclosure agreements and public discussion is not prohibited.
I re-examined the OPC specification and I still find the legal notice
inside the document frightening enough to dissuade me from much public
discussion until a new edition of those specifications is issued with
friendlier TDA.
-
OASIS (2005a).
- OASIS Open Document Format for Office Documents (OpenDocument)
TC. Technical Committee web page. Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA.
Available at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office>
(accessed 2005-10-09).
-
OASIS (2005b).
- OASIS Open Document TC IPR Policy Statement.
Technical Committee IPR Web Page. Organization for the Advancement
of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA.
Available at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php>
(accessed 2005-10-09). The IPR statements are provided in
reverse-chronological sequence.
-
OASIS (2005c).
- Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument)
v1.0: OASIS Standard 1 May 2005. Organization for the Advancement
of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA. Adobe
PDF file, 706pp. Available at <http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.0/OpenDocument-v1.0-os.pdf>
(accessed 2005-10-09).
-
OASIS (2005d).
- OpenDocument v1.0 Relax-NG Schema. Normative schema extracted
from the specification (OASIS 2005c).
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
(OASIS), Billerica, MA. Relax-NG file, 2005 May 1. Available at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12571/OpenDocument-schema-v1.0-os.rng>
(accessed 2005-06-08).
-
OASIS (2005e).
- OpenDocument v1.0 Manifest Relax-NG Schema. Normative schema
extracted from the specification (OASIS 2005c,
Chapter 17). Organization for the Advancement of Structured
Information Standards (OASIS), Billerica, MA. Relax-NG file, 2005 May 1.
Available at <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/12570/OpenDocument-manifest-schema-v1.0-os.rng>
(accessed 2005-12-02)
-
OASIS (2005f).
- OpenDocument v1.0 Strict Relax-NG Schema. Strict schema
extracted from the specification (OASIS 2005c, Appendix A).
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
(OASIS), Billerica, MA. Relax-NG file, 2005 May 1. Available
at
(accessed 2005-12-02)
The schema definition in this file derives the strict
schema by including the normative grammar (OASIS
2005d) from a local file and over-riding the fifteen definitions of patterns
that might have strict and non-strict components.
-
OSI (2005a).
- Open Source Definition 1.9. Open Source Initiative (undated).
Available at <
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php>.
(accessed 2005-12-04)
There is a new item (10) that did not appear in the
original OSD 1.9 document. This obscurely-worded clause is
directed at specific forms for obtaining assent to a license as a
contractual agreement. The AFL and OSL licenses apparently satisfy
the intent of that clause well-enough to retain their OSI-approved
status (Rosen 2005, pp.206-207).
-
OSI (2005b).
- Open Source Initiative (OSI). Web site home page, <http://www.opensource.org>
(accessed on 2005-12-04)
-
Rosen, Lawrence (2005).
-
Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual
Property Law. Prentice-Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
ISBN 0-13-148787-6 pbk.
There is extensive discussion of GPL compatibility,
sublicensing, patent defenses, and the crafting of an academic (AFL) and
a reciprocal (OSL) license that can be applied to any copyrightable
work. There are also wise words that apply to difficulties that
arise when amateurs (including me) write licenses. Notices on the OSI site asserts that Rosen now endorses only the later
AFL
2.1 and
OSL
2.1 licenses (OSI 2005b). Those or
later versions should be relied upon instead of the versions in the
book. Rosen disagrees that the AFL is incompatible with the GPL.
-
W3C (2004a).
- XML Schema Part 1: Structures, Second edition, W3C Recommendation 28
October 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/>.
-
W3C (2004b).
- XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, Second edition, W3C Recommendation 28
October 2004. World Wide Web Consortium. Available at <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/>.
The use of recognized standards organizations for establishing formal
document-format specifications of formats is a prominent concern.
The following organizations are mentioned in this regard. Each
organization has a site where you can find out more about their operation, how
specifications are developed, who is allowed to vote on the approval of
charters and specifications, and who is allowed to participate in various
other ways.
-
A5.1
IETF: The Internet Engineering Task Force. <http://www.ietf.org>
The IETF is an activity of the Internet
Society (ISOC).
The IETF fosters standards related to the protocols, procedures, and
conventions that are used on the Internet. The process for
developing standards is community-based and must undergo progressive
maturation through defined stages (Bradner 1996).
All standards-track progression is dependent on the existence of
implementations and demonstrated interoperability.
Working groups conduct operations on e-mail
distribution lists, are generally open, and all communications and
documents related to the development of IETF specifications are publicly
archived. Membership in working groups is by
voluntarily-participating individuals who are willing to contribute
under the IETF's intellectual-property conditions.
IETF Specifications (known as Requests for Comment, RFCs), are copyright
by the Internet Society. All rights are reserved and there are
restrictions under which derivative works are permitted. The IETF
requires that patents having essential claims be available under
fully-disclosed Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) license terms.
Because of the community participation, open conduct,
and progressive maturation of implementation-confirmed specifications,
the IETF process is respected and considered quite successful. All
RFCs are available on-line and the official version of a standards-track
RFC is always in an ASCII text-file format. Document formats are
not the normal purview of the IETF, although the IETF processes are an
useful benchmark for "open standards." The IETF process defines
"open standards" of others to include ones by international standards
bodies (e.g., ANSI and ISO) and various national and
international groups (e.g., W3C,
OASIS, and ECMA).
-
A5.2 ISO: The
International Organization for Standardization. <http://www.iso.org>
ISO is, speaking informally, a federating organization
that provides development and ratification of standards proposed by
recognized national standardization authorities (ANSI in the USA, SCC in
Canada, BSI in the United Kingdom, etc.). OASIS and ECMA
International are international organizations that have liaison status
with ISO. Document-format standards are most likely produced in
ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC1).
The likely subcommittee is
ISO/IEC JTC1
SC34 for Document Description and Processing Languages, where
46 standards are supported, starting with ISO 8879:1986 for SGML.
It is conceivable that specific formats will be assigned to other
subcommittees. There are substantial liaison activities among ISO
Technical Committees and external organizations as well.
There are no individual memberships in ISO, and
participation in technical work is via representatives of participating
standards and liaison organizations. In many cases, proposals and
completed work are brought to ISO after development in another
organization (including OASIS and ECMA). There are minutes and
other records of process but for the most part the technical discussions
are not public and there is no direct public comment provision in the
usual sense (since ratification is by member bodies, not individuals).
Although ISO standards exist for well-known elements of
information technology (C++, SQL, MPEG, RELAX NG, C# and the CLI, etc.),
most of the standards are relatively inaccessible and expensive, especially for individuals.
All specifications of ISO Standards carry an ISO copyright with all
rights reserved. ISO/IEC requires worldwide reasonable and
non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing availability for any patented technology
that is essential in the implementation of an ISO/IEC standard.
Recently, a body of ISO/IEC JTC1 standards have been made freely available for
anyone to download in electronic form, and some of these will be of
interest to software developers: <http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2489/Ittf_Home/PubliclyAvailableStandards.htm>.
-
A5.3 ECMA
International. <http://www.ecma-international.org/>
The members of ECMA International are companies and
organizations (including non-profits such as the U.S. NIST, OMG, Mozilla,
and Monash University),. ECMA is not a trade association in the
usual sense (in contrast with
AIIM International, for
example). The primary purpose of ECMA is the development and
publication of standards and technical reports in the fields of
information technology, communication technology, and consumer
electronics. Annual membership for the smallest for-profit
business category is almost $3,000 US and permits participation on a
single technical committee, with voting rights at that technical
committee. There is no fee for non-profit organizations.
One appeal of ECMA is its success in creating
fast-track processes that culminate in rapid adoption at the ISO level.
Over 80% of the 250 fast-tracked ISO/IEC standards were proposed by
ECMA, and 2/3 of the 450 specifications developed by ECMA since 1961
have been promulgated as ISO specifications (standards and technical
reports). ECMA promotes the fact that its process minimizes the
risk of changes to a submitted specification and that it tolerates Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND)
availability of patented technology (although any contributor could make
royalty-free provisions and other reassuring covenants, as Microsoft
proposes to do).
ECMA reports that ECMAScript is its "greatest hit"
along with C# and the CLI specifications. Further harmonization
with JavaScript and JScript and other developments is continuing, including
integration of E4X, the ECMA specification of ECMAScript for Native XML.
ECMA has developed media standards as well as standards for file
structures. There is current activity on a universal format for
interchange of three-dimensional computer-aided-design data for
visualization and repurposing.
The working processes of ECMA technical committees are
not public. Completed standards and technical reports are public
and freely available as on-line electronic documents. Downloaded
ECMA specifications (in Adobe PDF format) do not appear to carry any
intellectual-property notices which, by international rules, means that
they are copyrighted and no rights are transferred.
My only direct experience with ECMA was on a January
1969 visit to an ECMA meeting in Amsterdam where I represented the ANSI
X3.4.3 (then X3J3 and now
INCITS J3) Fortran committee. We discussed the direction
being taken as part of clarifying the 1966 ANSI Fortran specifications
and possible alignment with with European versions such as the French AFNOR
intermediate level between the Fortran-66 Basic standard that was rarely
used and the Fortran-66 Full standard. I overheard
other participants running down the Italian attendee for not being
fluent in other European languages. Right then I chose Italian as
the next European language that I might ever learn. Thirty years
later, I was fulfilling that promise.
Speaking of Fortran and ANSI specifications, we did not
make our working documents and discussions public, although there were
minutes and a record of documents maintained by CBEMA, the supporting
organization for ANSI specifications in Information Technology.
When opening up the records was discussed, the greatest concern
expressed by the members was worry that this would provoke
second-guessing and dispute based on working discussions and this should
be avoided. I recall that government representatives were
particularly sensitive on this matter.
-
A5.4
OASIS:
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards.
<http://www.oasis-open.org>
The members of OASIS are companies and organizations
(including individuals and non-profits such as the Arizona Supreme
Court, OMG, Bruce Garner, and MIT),. The primary purpose of OASIS
is development and adoption of e-business standards. There is a
substantial and diverse membership. Annual membership for the
smallest for-profit business category is almost $3,000 US.
Non-profit organizations are charged a $1,000 membership fee.
There are also reduced fees of $250 US for certain unaffiliated individuals and also for small
businesses that qualify at a special associate level.
OASIS is known for its work in SGML and in XML,
including OpenDocument and other document-centric specifications.
The working processes of OASIS technical committees (TCs)
are public. All committee e-mail archives, minutes, and other
materials are stored on OASIS-approved web sites and are available to
the public. There are provisions for E-mail submission of public
comments on approved materials and materials under public review.
Technical committees may also provide public-discussion forums at
earlier stages of standard development. There are
attendance/participation requirements for voting membership at the
technical committee level, and individual members of OASIS are eligible
to participate as technical-committee voting members along with
employer-approved participants from OASIS member organizations.
OASIS Specifications are copyright OASIS Open with all rights
reserved and with possible notices of other copyright holders (the case
for the OASIS OpenDocument Standard). Participants and
contributors make non-exclusive, perpetual transfers to OASIS.
Newly chartered OASIS Technical Committees may elect to operate under
RAND patent licensing requirements or requirements for royalty-free (RF)
licensing with or without additional RAND conditions applicable.
Current TCs must transition to one of those forms, and Technical
Committees currently operating under royalty-free (RF) requirements,
such as the OpenDocument TC, must transition to one of the new RF forms
by 2007-04-15.
-
A5.5 W3C: The
Worldwide Web Consortium. <http://www.w3.org>
The W3C is a consortium with full-time
staff and offices around the world. W3C is administered by
MIT,
ERCIM, and
Keio University.
Members, staff, and the public collaborate to provide standards for the
web. There are over 400 member organizations. The lowest
annual membership is currently over $6,000 per year. There are
conditions under which unaffiliated individuals and academics may
participate as invited experts.
W3C is
known for its work in Web technologies, including HTML, XML, and a
portfolio of specifications designed to lead to the Semantic Web.
The working processes of W3C technical committees (TCs) involves
operation under a public charter. Communications within the group
may be restricted to members-only (depending on the charter) although
public forms of key materials are provided at some point.
W3C Specifications are copyright by W3C with all rights
reserved. There are specific disclaimers and a
license statement. Derivative works of specifications
are generally not allowed without prior written permission of W3C.
The W3C requires that patents having essential claims applicable to a
W3C specification be available on a
royalty-free (RF) basis. Software components and utilities
provided by W3C are free and, when open-source, released under GPL-compatible
licenses.
- 0.81 2005-12-23-15:35 Reflect availability of
the Ecma TC45 OOX base document
- Draft provisions around conformance and approach are reflected in the
analysis. Routine addition of links and editorial tweaks occurs
without advancing the version.
- 0.80 2005-12-18-21:50 Tracking Progress
- The small steps of progress into 2006 are tracked here as needed.
Adjustments will be accumulated in versions of a single page until something
momentous arises. My resolution of open-source licensing
approaches and the Microsoft FAQ on the Ecma submission and covenant not to
sue are tied into the analysis.
- 0.75 2005-12-06-21:59 Take Affirmative Approach
to Open-Format Adoption
- Recast in terms of how I approach open-format support and adoption as an
user and as a developer of document-processing software.
- 0.65 2005-11-30-19:49 Reflect the Intention to
Submit Office XML to ECMA
- OK, there's more reason to update the table as the saga continues.
I am still putting the constructive efforts elsewhere, and simply updating
this analysis as events require.
This will clear the decks for a
more-straightforward 0.75 analysis.- 0.50 2005-10-11-12:09 Develop Updated Canonical
Version
- The page is moved to the canonical location, orcmid/writings/2005/06 and
developed to serve as the latest version, incorporating more information on
the license differences for Open Document Format (ODF) and Office Open XML (OOX).
- 0.27 2005-06-05-13:18 Initiate Patent Coverage
- The 0.26 version is branched for customization to build to an 0.50
Analysis
- 0.26 2005-06-05-00:51 Clean-up edits
- Reflect the changes and fixes introduced while editing the blog entry.
Link to the blog entry.
- 0.25 2005-06-04-22:38 Complete the Draft of Copyright
Cases
- The sections pertinent to making a crisper blog entry on the copyright
cases are completed.
- 0.00 2005-06-04-15:22 Initiate Analysis
- Create placeholder for the first draft of my analysis here.
|
You are navigating Orcmid's Lair
|
created 2005-12-18-20:52 -0800 (pst) by orcmid
$$Author: Orcmid $
$$Date: 06-10-11 22:39 $
$$Revision: 30 $
|
Home
