 |
privacy |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hangout for experimental confirmation and demonstration of software, computing, and networking. The exercises don't always work out. The professor is a bumbler and the laboratory assistant is a skanky dufus.
Blog Feed Recent Items 
The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave nfoCentrale Associated Sites |
2005-10-11Relaxing Patent Licenses for Open DocumentsW050601d: Microsoft's IP-Infringement Specter - Analysis 0.50. Updated Information: The table, below, has been updated in Analysis 0.75, Toward Open-Format Adoption. The 2005–12–06 blog post, Lining Up Formats for Office Documents, summarizes the later analysis. In June, I made some examination of the move by Microsoft to open up the Microsoft Office document formats as part of moving to XML-based default formats for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Other components of the suite also support XML but this full-up default format is for the three key applications in the Office “12” development scenario announced so far. I had already been studying the relationship between intellectual property (especially patent licenses) and practices that I have in mind for open-source development. The exploration of the Microsoft Office Open XML formats is instructive in that regard. My own investigation along with discussions about the licenses on various blogs was valuable in sharpening my own thinking on safe use of differently-licensed intellectual property as part of an open-source contribution. I’ve completed my personal appraisal of the licensing conditions around Microsoft Office Open XML formats (OX) and the OASIS Open Document Format (ODF). I have enough to formulate the approach that I will be employing in patterns of TROST and contributions under ActiveODMA. Also, in June, I posted a comparison of the license and use restrictions that apply between OX and ODF. That comparison depended, for part of its analysis, on the Sun Microsystems IPR statement on OpenDocument from December, 2002. Sun made a dramatic improvement with a new Sun Patent Statement that was published on September 29. I have updated the original comparison to reflect the impact of that as well as further explorations in OX (to the degree publicly known) and the ODF specification. The changes resulting from the new patent statement are summarized (in my words) in the following extract from the new comparison table.
The full table provides references to all of the materials as part of an extensive discussion of this and other aspects of the two approaches. As part of my latest review, I have also noticed some features of OpenDocument that make me wonder how conformance for interchange of documents across products is to be assured. I don’t know how materially OpenDocument’s intentional “looseness” will interfere with successful preservation of public records, for example. This situation reminds me of the “floor=ceiling” debate that surrounded the specification of the COBOL programming language as part of nailing down the ANSI standards and building conformance tests. This was a momentous challenge, witnessed by the act of Congress that it took to bring Grace Hopper back to duty for creating the Navy certification process for COBOL compilers. If you consult the full table you will see that I have no information on how Microsoft’s Office Open XML format will work in this regard. Since the standard to be met is consistency of Microsoft Office products with themselves, it is not clear how that will translate to an appropriate public agreement for achievement of interchange and legacy preservation. It appears that ODF is going to be the incubator for how meaningful interchange and preservation of electronic documents are established.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You are navigating Orcmid's Lair. |
template
created 2004-06-17-20:01 -0700 (pdt)
by orcmid |