The OSP Will Apply To Future Versions of DIS29500…
27 March 2008 by oliverSeveral times over the last few months I have been asked why Microsoft has not made a stronger commitment to provide the necessary intellectual property for future versions of the DIS29500 (OpenXML) specification.
Our commitment is a very strong one, and at least as good if not better than most other standards commitments. That said, we are going to go ahead and further clarify the commitment.
The commitment itself is at the bottom of this post, as a preamble I thought it might be worthwhile to look at other commitments being made in this area from Sun and IBM…
For example the commitment that Sun Microsystems make around patents that are needed to implement ODF reads;
“any implementation of the Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.0 Specification, or of any subsequent version thereof (“OpenDocument Implementation”) in which development Sun participates to the point of incurring an obligation, as defined by the rules of OASIS, to grant (or commit to grant) patent licenses or make equivalent non-assertion covenants.”
This makes a clear and bounded statement around the rights that developers have to the necessary patents and places a dependency upon Sun’s participation in the OASIS ODF technical committee.
IBM takes a slightly different approach in their Interoperability Pledge, they make a very simple statement on the issues of supporting future versions that reads;
“[IBM makes] this irrevocable patent covenant with regard to the Specifications listed below.”
IBM then backs this up in their FAQ;
“IBM will evaluate new versions or additional specifications for inclusion based on their consistency with the objectives of this pledge which is to support widespread adoption of open specifications that enable software interoperability for our customers, and may, from time to time, make additional pledges.”
Microsoft’s commitment in the OSP is comparable to the statement that IBM makes, in that it grants full rights to listed specifications and states that new versions of specification will be considered and added as necessary.
“This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications [public list posted at http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/]. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list.”
For developers wanting to use the ISO/IEC DIS29500 specification this has raised some questions around exactly what level of support Microsoft will pledge to future versions of the OpenXML specification as it continues to evolve through the ISO process.
This is an important issue, and to date I don’t think we have been clear enough around our intent in this area. This has come up in internal discussions several times recently and today a decision was taken to make a public statement to continue to make the intellectual property that developers or users may need available to future versions.
The statement will appear on http://microsoft.com shortly, in the interests of beating content management software to the punch I thought I would also post here. I know it has been an issue of some debate for many folks here in the Asia Pacific region.
The intent and objective that we have here should be clear. We believe that a broad ecosystem of developers supporting OpenXML is good for both the software industry and for customers, and our IPR statements should support that.
“As long as Microsoft participates in the revision process to completion, Microsoft irrevocably commits to apply the OSP to that future version of IS29500.”
Our intent here was to map as closely as possible to the approach Sun had taken (since that was the most common request we heard in our discussions with the community of potential implementers).
Given some differences in the wording of the underlying IPR policies that govern work at ISO and at OASIS, it was clear that we could not simply copy Sun’s language verbatim, so we had to craft some new language to obtain a similar result.
We believe the language we picked aligns very well to the commitment that Sun is making in its pledge relating to ODF in the context of the OASIS policy and rules, and since we know developers are happy with Sun’s statement we believe this additional step that we’re taking for OpenXML is a significant commitment to the growing community of developers and users of the DIS29500 specification.
As I say, it will be up on http://micrsosoft.com somewhere shortly, and I’ll add a link here when it is!
27 March 2008, on 3:49 pm
“As long as Microsoft participates in the revision process to completion, Microsoft irrevocably commits to apply the OSP to that future version of IS29500.”
I don’t see how this works as in JTC 1 *International* standardisation the participants are not corporations but ISO and IEC members, chiefly nations. In other word Microsoft can never formally “participate” in the revision process, and this committment is meaningless.
This would be better stated as:
“As long as a body with Microsoft representation participates in the revision process to completion (up to the maximum extent permissible under ISO and IEC rules), Microsoft irrevocably commits to apply the OSP to that future revision of ISO/IEC 29500.”
This could allow the OSP to apply if (say) Ecma has MS representation and participated fully in the maintenance process.
- Alex.
27 March 2008, on 8:14 pm
I don’t even know what “participate in the revision process” means in JTC1. Companies don’t participate at all in JTC1, only NB’s and Liaisons do.
The OASIS promise, which binds IBM as well, is much clearer. If you are a TC member for 60 days, and remain a TC member 7 days after a Committee Draft is released, then you are obligated to the OASIS IPR terms if that draft ever is approved as a Committee Specification or an OASIS Standard. Since the OASIS process has a built-in 15-day delay between the approval of a Committee Specification and the start of a ballot for an OASIS Standard, it is crystal clear to anyone voting in OASIS (or later in JTC1) exactly what companies are obliged. There is no loophole for companies to drop out of the process on the last day of the ballot period, as the revised OSP seems to allow.
27 March 2008, on 10:58 pm
The OSP will apply to DIS 29500 (Open XML) going forward…
Oliver has a post today discussing this, as it’s come up a lot in the discussions he’s been having: http://osrin.net/2008/03/27/the-osp-will-apply-to-future-versions-of-dis29500/...
28 March 2008, on 1:21 am
Oliver,
This is a positive step, thank you.
However, could you please clarify what “participates in the revision process to completion” means, please? To me it seems rather ill-defined.
Thank you,
Inigo
28 March 2008, on 6:31 am
It is an almost meaningless addition to the OSP promise. The Ecma code of conduct in patent matters:
http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm
already requires RAND licensing of OOXML as long as your partipate on new versions or even when you just vote to approve on new versions in Ecma.
28 March 2008, on 7:14 am
Thanks for this, good comments. As you all say, our intent here needs to be absolutely clear, and you all raise points that we will consider. Give me some time to run this by a couple of internal groups.
In the mean time the commitment to support future versions remains strong, which is the important point!
More to come.
28 March 2008, on 2:47 pm
Oliver,
I couldn’t help but notice that the word “IS29500″ is in the text. Will this mean that in case DIS 29500 fails tomorrow - will the OSP (and specifically this addition) not apply?
28 March 2008, on 2:57 pm
What can I say? I’m highly optimistic by nature.
Future versions will be covered! We’re committed.
28 March 2008, on 10:56 pm
Improvements to the Open Specification Promise on Open XML…
Open Source Developers - this is great news for you! Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (OSP) grants…
24 April 2008, on 6:09 pm
Oliver,
Do you have any updated information on when the “future versions” will be reflected in the OSP?
2 June 2008, on 7:06 pm
hAl,
It is quite irrelevant what rules Ecma has since we discuss the ISO standard, not any Ecma standard. Even then, it doesn’t help what those rules says unless they are referenced in the actual OSP. Implementers only has what Microsoft themselves promise. If Microsoft doesn’t fulfill its obligations versus Ecma or ISO it is only an issue between Microsoft and ISO or Ecma. The implementers are out in the cold.
Oliver,
Further problems. Even if Microsoft were to add such language as you post here, it will still not get close to what Sun has for ODF. Sun has, since they refer to the rules of OASIS, already committed themselves for obligations given *even* if they no longer participate. The rules of OASIS, se section 11, states so and Sun by referring to those rules in their Patent Statement, are bound by them.
If Sun leaves, and no longer participate, their obligations of already given promises, will continue into future versions of ODF. This is not the case for Microsoft. If Microsoft leaves, patent promises given for already existing features in OOXLM will no longer be covered in future versions. ISO and Ecma will have to then toss out all such sections of the standard. This is not the case for ODF and Sun.
Microsoft should thus either refer to some rules, if any exists, of ISO and Ecma that has such commitment or insert it in their own OSP. Otherwise Microsoft can basically put forward a veto on future changes, threatening to leave. Not a healthy situation.