Talk:Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML licensing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Article cleanup 2 Unencyclopedic 3 Microsoft licensing 3.1 Abbreviations 4 Spam regarding the Microsoft Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schema 4.1 Regarding the Microsoft licensing and Covenant not to sue information

[edit] Article cleanup

This article is not Encyclopedic, it is just a sum of citations and does not present clearly, each side point of view. The material is probably there, but it need to be put in a proeminent position and citations to support it. The citations must be also be done according to WP standards i.e in italics or/and with identations--Khalid hassani 12:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess a good start would also be to remove "Ad Hominem"-like statements about Microsoft, and confine ourselves to comparing the actual formats.

[edit] Unencyclopedic

Much as I dislike microsoft, I have to agree that this article does not seem to be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia. Some external links to the he said/she said urls would be all that is needed.--- Pmurray bigpond.com 01:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted the template stating this article as unencyclopedic.--- I also dislike M$'s products or "standards", but that doesn't make this kind of comparison encyclopedic.--- Louie 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. I don't think Wikipedia should present a comparison on anything (broadly speaking). It should present the facts on both and let people draw conclusions. Maybe this article could be renamed to 'criticism of MS Open XML licensing' or perhaps, for a less biased version, 'MS OPen XML Licensing' ? --Nickj69 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is horribly biased. It is worded like a blog/article rather than an encyclopedia entry. This page should be removed.

The page is necessary but has been dammaged by adding unrelated material such as talk of licnesing of the MS Office 2003 format.

[edit] Microsoft licensing

An indication of the totally free and open use of the format was given by microsoft XML program manager Brian Jones as he states: No license needed to use the Office Open XML formats^[1]

A rumour or a legally binding 'indication' ? A license, unless MS donates the standard to the public domain, is most certainly needed, even if it's a BSD-style license. Minion o' Bill 15:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed added line by anonymous

A concern however, is that since the specifications must be strictly followed, this leaves Microsoft with the ability to add proprietary extensions to the format (much in the same way as with .NET) which competitors cannot use.

This does not seems correct as Microsoft already granted licensing to it's format and it's successors Microsoft will provide non-discriminatory access to future versions of those specifications. on Microsoft webbie hAl 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ha1, there is a big semantic difference between "will provide" vs "provides". The first hasn't happened. The webbie link goes only to chaff about MS Office 2003 formats. Still nothing there about the formats the article is discussing. What date will such information be published? Minion o' Bill 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Three problems with the section on MS' "covenant":

• Where can it be shown that it is legall binding? Until that is shown it's hearsay.
• There isn't any "covenant" for MS Office Open XML. Until there is, discussion of one is simply speculation.
• MS Office 2003 XML is a separate format, one that is being phased out at that, and does not belong here.

As interesting as the MS Office 2003 XML format and its licensing may be to some proponents, it has nothing to do with MS Office Open XML format. That is not only a separate format, it has separate licensing. Todate, the licensing has not been released. There has been speculation that the licensing will be similar to the MS Office 2003 XML format. However, that is speculation and not fact. There is currently no license or "covenant" for MOOX. When there is one, add it to the article, until then, it is speculation.

Minion o' Bill 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A covenant is a onesided agreement to do or not to do something. It has legal binding (at least it has in the USA) unless it agrees to actions forbidden by law . Stating in a covenant that a future format will fall under the same covenant therefore also has legal binding. The MS covenant is not about licensing but about patents. The license for the format will be a Ecma open standard license. Microsoft will be a creator (with possible patentrights) but not the owner of the format.The covenant means that the format can be used as an Ecma open standard without MS using it's (possible) patentrights on the format. Without the covenant there would still be a risk even when the format would be Ecma standard. That is why Ecma requires that patentrights on it's formats are waived so all of their formats are completly open. hAl 21:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Covenant", license - same deal. Neither deal with MS Office Open XML. Maybe it will have the same ones as MS Office 2003 had maybe not, but utterances from executives are not legally binding. The page is not a Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office 2003, nor a Comparison of OpenDocument and Micorosoft WordML. Be constructive for a change there, HAl. Let's see a legally binding document for MS Office Open XML there in the article, not red herrings about depreciated formats. Minion o' Bill 06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is true that, "That is why Ecma requires that patentrights on it's formats are waived so all of their formats are completly open.", then why not link to that instead and show how it applies to MS Office Open XML ? Minion o' Bill 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

| check here hAl 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I am not looking to expand this article as I rather have the entire article scrapped. Both formats will be open standard with waived patentright form the companies that originally created the format. Frankly the whole discussion about has become obsolete after Micrsoft released it's covenant not to sue. Your edits again create the implication of a difference in licensing that isn't really there. So that is why I keep reverting them.

Patents are only one aspect of licensing. Copyright is another, and wholly unaddressed by the whole "covenant" thing.

Anyway, in regards to patents the links you keep trying to put into the article pertain to the wrong format MS Office 2003 format only So, if there is something for MS Office Open XML, then show it. Don't keep vandalizing the page with links to outdated formats which are not part of the discussion which is about OpenDocument and MS Office Open XML, no others. The ecma link actually raises more concern: how is "reasonable and non-discriminatory basis" defined by Ecma as it applies to MS Office Open XML format? Minion o' Bill

[edit] Abbreviations

This article needs to keep mention of the abbreviations for OpenDocument and MS Office Open XML. Why? Because most of the web pages out there discussion either or both use those abbreviations. Variants must be included too. Why? Because individual web pages will usually use only one of the variants, so a searcher will need to know of several.

[edit] Spam regarding the Microsoft Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schema

The Microsoft Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas is for a legacy format. The formats being compared here are OpenDocument (ODF) and MS Office Open XML (MOOX/DOCX). MSO2003XML is being discontinued. Even if it weren't: it's still a different format and not part of the Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML licensing.

If there were a "covenant" for MS Office Open XML, I'm sure MS would publish it. But they haven't, so there is nothing to link to. End of story. Continued attempts to shoehorn http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/covenant.mspx into the article are simply vandalism or spam.

Since the MS Office Open XML format is being processed by Ecma, it would be wiser to instead link to the Ecma Code of Conduct in Patent Matters: http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm Since that seems to be the only binding document available todate. Minion o' Bill 07:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

the only thing that is the real vandalism here is that you try to remove all references to the clear statements that the licensing and patentclaim statments by MS are irrevocable and will also apply to future versions. This is a standard clause that will hold up in any court. hAl 12:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is currently no document addressing licensing and patent claims for the format MS Office Open XML. Wishful thinking and vandalism doesn't make it otherwise. If you have a document from MS or Ecma or Santa Claus regarding MS Office Open XML then post it, especially if it corresponds to the one for the now defunct MS Office 2003 format. But cease spamming the article with documents about MSO 2003. If you would like to start a separate article about MSO 2003 or comparing MSO 2003 Format licensing with OpenDocument licensing, then please do so. But stop trying to force MSO 2003 info into the article. MSO2003 and MOOX are two different formats. Minion o' Bill 13:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You removed a citation from a legal firm called "Standardisation and Licensing of Microsoft's Office Open XML Reference SchemaTitle". Clearly you either cannot read of have read any of hte information in the article. in fact you are just a big anti MS editor. I look at your contributions and noticed you are also in some reverting war about the article about Vista. Moving down Microsoft Vista in a list of Vista software. That is not only just laughable but also show your completly biased and POV attitude towards Microsoft. It is fine to dislike them. I am not always a fan of their actions to but in this case where even OSS lawyers like Larry Rosen already approved on the licensing for the Microsoft office format you are just a big annoyance. The current information in the article is relvant to the format. The crap you put in it's place isn't of any use to anyone. hAl 13:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough with the personal attacks HA1. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion or to the article, or are you here just to vandalize it? If you have a link to the MS Office Open XML license, as you claim, then post it. Minion o' Bill 13:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you had even read the article and citations you are vandalising you would have understood that there is no specific licencing for OOXML nor will there ever be such a licensing. A licence is not required as it will be an open standard of Ecma without patent rights claims by Microsoft. You cannot license an open standard. Not even Micrsoft can license out an Ecma standard that does not belong to them. hAl 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. There is no licensing for MS Office Open XML nor is there likely to be any. As you state, maybe something will come from Ecma. When it does, that will be relevant. Discussions of MSO 2003, Word 6.0 and other formats which MS is abandoning do not belong in this article. You are free to start a new article on MS Office 2003 format, that's where that material belongs. Minion o' Bill 06:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

()

[edit] Regarding the Microsoft licensing and Covenant not to sue information

The licensing is exactly the same for ODF. ODF 1.0 is an almost ISO standard. OOXML final draft is an almost Ecma standard. Both are free in use (not all ISO standards are, all Ecma standards are). ODF has a covenant not to sue. OOXML has a covenant not to sue. The fact that you think that the covenenat not applies to the OOXML format is purely your point of view as shown by the the citations you keep removing by Microsoft and a legal firm that clearly point to the validity of the covenant for OOXML. Both covenants of Sun and MS are about the original patentsrights that come from have created the starting format for the standard and are irrevocable and apply to current version and future versions of the office formats. If you can cite reputable sources that the covenant does not apply you are welcome to add those citations to the article. Then the reader can read those citation as well decide which sources to trust. But you keep removing valid citations and placing your own opinion on the covenant in stead is just a big big NONO hAl 09:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong on several counts. ODF is already an ISO standard. It does have already have its own licensing and even a "covenent". MOOX/OOXML/DOCX doesn't. MSO 2003 XML does, but like the name shows, it is a different format. No, HA1, it is up to you to show that there is a covenant for MOOX. MSO 2003 XML isn't it, MOOX is not even mentioned. So far MS a "covenant" claiming it might not sue over MSO 2003.

We are still waiting for one for MOOX/OOXML/DOCX, but there probably won't ever be one. Formats are such a hot topic, especially open ones like OpenDocument, on everybody's radar, even MS. So if MS were not going to sue over the new format, then the public relations team (that includes you there HA1) would all be shouting it in their loudest voices from every roof top. That's not happening, so it's a reasonable conclusion that MS won't extend such protections to MOOX and that it does reserve the right to sue people over it in the future.

Please stop vandalising wikipedia, HA1. I realise you are here to waste people's time and are probably paid to push certain issues, but it is non-productive and is actively hurting, albeit in a small way, the IT sector and the other parts of the economy which make use of it. Minion o' Bill 07:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you do not agree does not make it the truth. that only makes it POV. The information correct and cited. People can read the source and interprete. You just remove the information and put in place your POV without any source to back up that opinion. Feel free to add relevant oposing opinions about the covenant not to sue or about the openness of Ecma standards with the appropriate citations. That way people can inform themselves about any issues that might surround OOXML. However you scrapping properly sourced information because you do not agree on a personal level I will not accept and I will readd the information untill there is newer or more relvant information available to be added hAl 10:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether I "agree" or not does not make it the truth. The fact that the "covenant" is about a different format (and thusly not about MS Office Open XML) makes it the truth. What part of the following two strings of characters is unclear? (Hint: look at the highlighted part.)

• MS Office 2003 XML ?
• MS Office Open XML ?

Information about MS Office Open XML licensing is very welcome. Information about OpenDocument licensing is very welcome. The licensing of either format is the scope of the article. However, information about unrelated formats, "Properly sourced" or not, doesn't belong there. If you want, you are free to start an article comparing OpenDocument licensing to MS Office 2003 XML licensing or even to Word 6 licensing, but please stop disruptive spamming of the article. Minion o' Bill 11:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You call it an unrelated format. The rest of the world calls a successor. In the covenant it definitly falls under the header future formats. Office Open XML is a new name to express the opennes of the format. But actually the office 2003 version is by use of the covenant already an open format. New to this following OOXML version is that it will also be an open standard format by standardization trough ecma. But it still contains the same basics of the 2003 format which are WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML and PresentationsML. hAl 13:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It's a successor, a name for different format, a new format. Probably one of many more to come, if MS is around long enough. New ones seem to come about every 18 months. WinWord 2.0 was the successor for Word 6.0. WinWord95 was the successor to WinWord 2.0, and so on. They're different formats and thus each have their own licensing. That's how business and IT work. HTML 3.2 was the successor to HTML 2. Each have their own licensing. HTML 4 is the successor to HTML 3.2. And, yes, they have their own licenses even though they are just versions of the same format. MOOX is a whole new format. By the way, new WMA/WMV formats have been released since the MS "covenant" was published, making them "future formats" relative the the "covenant", so is it claimed that they are covered too?

MOOX/DOCX/OOXML has components from WordprocessingML, SpreadsheetML, PresentationsML and a few others, all from MS. It can mix and match, re-use or what ever. In this case, MS has used some of the pieces to contribute to a new format. MS owns the copyright to those specs and doesn't have to worry about it's own use. It's businesses and people outside of MS who have to make sure the are compliant with licensing. And to do that, there has to be documented licensing for the new format.

Ecma licensing requirements are predictable and there seems to be no need to wait until the committee gives it thumbs up/down before deciding on licensing. Minion o' Bill 07:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)