Microsoft open specification promise
Matthias Kirschner
mk at fsfe.org
Tue Dec 11 10:26:50 UTC 2012
Hi Mirko,
* Mirko Boehm <mirko at fsfe.org> [2012-12-06 14:04:04 +0100]:
> at the Microsoft presentation at the summit of newthinking I took a note
> to check the conditions under which the OData standard (the OASIS open
> data standard proposal, heavily industry influence) is licensed. Turns
> out it is the "Microsoft open specification promise" found here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/default.aspx
>
> Was there already an analysis of how these terms align with our
> understanding of what an open standard is? And if not, is this something
> where we should communicate actively?
Please also have a look at:
http://fsfe.org/activities/os/msooxml-interoperability.en.html
Example #3: Microsoft's Open Specification Promise is not reliable
legal coverage for complete interoperability
MS-OOXML files generated by MS Office 2007 contain content that is
implementation defined. This is a cause for concern because content
not described in the proposed specification has an unclear status
regarding coverage under the Microsoft Open Specification Promised
(OSP). OSP coverage is limited to patents "that are necessary to
implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that
are described in detail and not merely referenced in such
Specification." 8
The OSP states in the final sentence of paragraph two that "No other
rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed
granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or
otherwise". 9 It appears reasonable to not rely on the OSP for content
necessary to allow interoperability that is not described in detail or
referenced in the proposed specification.
This concern becomes more acute if the document is saved in other
variations of the proposed specification format. For example, XLSM
documents contain unspecified content as well as binary content. XLSB
documents contain content stored using a method apparently not
described in the proposed specification. XSLX documents with a
password are also stored using a document container apparently not
covered by the proposed specification.
Also some information
http://fsfe.org/activities/os/msooxml-idiosyncrasies.en.html
Regards,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - FSFE - Fellowship Coordinator, German Coordinator
FSFE, Linienstr. 141, 10115 Berlin, t +49-30-27595290 +49-1577-1780003
Weblog (blogs.fsfe.org/mk) - Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner)
Support FSFE! http://fsfe.org/support/?mk
More information about the Discussion
mailing list