Why should we trust that you, as a microsoft partner, have our rights as the first concern when you answer?

You claim that the OSP is GPL compatible…sorry but that counts for nothing unless it is Microsoft that make the promise.

Microsoft that by all means know what they plan to do with the OOXML patents refuse to tell us if they will use these against GPL software or not. It is not a matter that the rest of us can solve by consulting lawyers, Microsoft need to tell us what their true intentions are because the hold the ball.

A personal speculation of mine is that what Microsoft intend to do is to sell the patents to patent trolls later and make these try to stop the GPL momentum.

Fortunately I don’t think it will be enough to stop the GPL, but meanwhile you could at least spare us from hearing empty speculations about that Microsoft perhaps having good motives for not explictly allowing GPL code to implement OOXML.

The OSP is not related to the GPL.
GPL deals with IP rights of contributors to the OSS software and does not grant 3rd party rights.
The OSP has to do with Microsoft patent rights which are in effect 3rd party rights.
So the rights granted trough the OSP therefore are additional rights to the rights granted by GPL licensing.
This is simular to the covenant not to sue by Sun (and likely a similar promise by IBM/Lotus)

Thus the OSP or CNS promises are compatible with all OSS licenses because it grants extra 3rd party patent rights.

Mike Rhodin has been open about the fact that Symphony has been built with the intent of commoditizing productivity software, by the way. I don’t think anyone could reasonably think that’s a hidden intent. And, as you observe, commoditizing it threatens a massive revenue stream for Microsoft, while helping software users enormously.

In other words, this is a pervasive problem.

Fair enough. I work for IBM, but I don’t represent IBM. At the moment, I’m trying to figure out how to exploit the tens-of-thousands-of-processors in a BlueGene; if you like, spending IBM’s research dollars, and trying to move things on to where it’s attractive for clients to invest their research dollars.

On that scale, ODF and OOXML is a bit of a sideshow. It’s going to come to a vote; like your Presidential election, one side is going to win and the other is going to lose; and we’re all going to have to live with the outcome.

I think what we’re trying to do here — and Rob, it’s your ‘blog’, correct me if I’m wrong — is shed enough light so that the various participants can see what they are letting themselves in for, and choose wisely.

When I think about IBM’s position, it is most easily understood by looking at who it sells to, and what it sells. The ‘who’ tends to be ‘governments and large businesses’, and the ‘what’ is ‘hardware, software, and services’. IBM will sell to other organisations and individuals, of course; the ‘direct channel’ does a lot of business, and a fair bit is sold through partners. But the sales force tends to find it most worthwhile concentrating on governments and large businesses.

This re-slicing of the business is ongoing. OS/2, the IBM operating system for Personal Computers, was a sweet thing; worked very well; the only problem was that no-one would buy it. So IBM sold that one off, too. If you really want, you can get one from Serenity Systems; but not from IBM.
Lotus SmartSuite, broadly speaking the IBM competitor to Microsoft Office, looks to be going the same way; particularly if IBM is going to tell people that they can go get IBM Lotus Symphony at no charge. We view it (I think) as a form of advertising for Lotus Notes. It’s rather like what happened when ATT stopped making money in the handset rental business, and moved into the ‘infrastructure’ business; a revolutionary disruptive change at the time, but looking back it was an obvious progression. Why fight the OpenOffice tide, when you can accept it and build on it ? Not all software developers hang out in corporations; universities develop software (for rather different reasons), they eventually close down whatever lead the corporations have, and if the universities are to train the future technologists for the corporate workforce, their work needs to be encouraged rather than suppressed.

Anyway, to OOXML and ODF. To me, OOXML looks to be a component of a solution which only is deliverable in context of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Can you imagine anyone going to the trouble of implementing OOXML for a Sony Playstation ? Whereas ODF already has been. And expecting IBM to invest in developing SmartSuite to the point where it can digest OOXML documents is rather like expecting ATT to invest in developing telephone handsets; both IBM and ATT have more productive things to invest in nowadays.

The 2 forms of XML seem to be for fundamentally different purposes. OOXML is a documentation of the behaviour of one vendor’s product; ODF is the result of the deliberation of many stakeholders … vendors, purchasers, academics … of how they would like things to be.

There are huge commercial forces at stake, of course. Microsoft could spend a billion dollars to attempt to swing the vote their way; IBM likewise. You might attempt to justify it as spending a billion dollars to buy good players in an attempt to win the Superbowl. But spending a billion dollars like that wouldn’t be good for ‘the world’, and I’m sure it takes great forbearance on all sides to only do what is within the bounds of commercially acceptable behaviour.

On towards the BRM, then.

The UK is certainly different, but your implication that it’s simpler may be misplaced…

“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”

I don’t believe I’ve ever understood a single comment you’ve made.

It *is* my supposition that you work for IBM, probably in the Lotus division or with Lotus technologies in some way. And that is a collection of technologies about which I have a substantial knowledge, but I’m afraid that, to me, you are Jeremiah the Bullfrog.

Presumably IBM thought that OS/2 Warp 4 was the end of the line for ‘commercial operating systems for personal computers’. Competition hotted up, Amazon do a lovely line in Linuxes, and it doesn’t really take IBM skills to place an order there.

Now, it’s Lotus SmartSuite’s turn. ‘Commercial standalone office productivity software’ can be bought here, but not many people do. And the chance that it will be developed to support either ISO26300 or DIS29500 looks rather remote. In fact if you search for SmartSuite on the IBM direct web site, you get a banner ad for IBM Lotus Symphony pointing out that it’s available by direct download from IBM, at no charge.

Moving up the value chain, IBM Lotus Notes is a pretty good bet if you’re a large business or government wanting a well-controlled collaboration environment for your employees, and it’s selling like hot cakes. Bringing in giga-dollars.

So, the theoretically-anticompetitive behaviour has knocked out the market for OS/2 and SmartSuite (the hypothetical competitors to Windows and Office); but they have been replaced by items which are standards-compliant and available to all at no charge.

Such is the wonder of the participatory Web 2.0 . We share our problems and our solutions, and eventually we get there. For some businesses, it’s good.

Where next, though ?

1) The lazy choice, where they just indicate the legacy choices as flags in the OOXML format. This requires zero effort for Microsoft and makes the documents harder to consumer for competitors.

2) Convert the legacy settings into the preferred markup now. This would require that Microsoft make a greater investment in their conversion code and would make OOXML documents more accessible to Microsoft competitors.

So what does Microsoft do? Yup, the anti-competitive choice. Anyone surprised?

Microsoft might have said something like:

“The Open Specification Promise is consistent with most FOSS licenses including the GPL. Please understand this is not a legal advice. For anything that matters, please consult with your lawyer.”

Of course since presumably the OSP is not consistent with the GPL, they cannot say that.

Something similar happens with IBM Lotus Symphony . Obviously IBM would like people to take it and use it; that’s why it’s there, and why its price is zero. And IBM doesn’t mind if you give — or sell — copies to your mates.

But will anyone else mind ? There are (for example) laws in various countries of the world governing possession, use, and export of technology which can be used for encryption of data. In most of the Western world, we tend to think it’s necessary for ordinary commercial operations and for exercise of personal freedoms; but some countries take different views. And Symphony might in some circumstances encrypt something.

So how should IBM know (or why should IBM care) what your local laws are, or whether you have an exemption ? You have to seek your own advice on that one, if it matters.

6 billion copies of IBM Lotus Symphony, one in the hand of every person on the planet, here we come.

OOXML ? Like typewriters. We used to need them.

Obviously, according to Microsoft itself, the possibility to use the GPL licence with OOXML is… not obvious.

From the high tide mark down, no British monarch has ever given anyone the exclusive right to occupy. No-one can hold UK land below high tide. It still belongs to the Crown, everywhere around the coastline.

Except for the odd Royal castle, or the occasional Ministry Of Defence firing range, we treat it as having a General Public Licence. Come and go as you please. Anywhere on it, every beach in the Kingdom, no charge. We hold it in common, we share.

Back in 1066, the place got invaded by William the Conqueror. He declared himself king, and thereby granted himself a monopoly on the land.

It’s never been conquered since. Things have got close a few times, but the Kingdom still stands. And now all the land (from high tide mark upwards) belongs to Queen Elizabeth. And we rather assume that the next monarch will be King Charles.

As loyal subjects, we hold the land on which our houses stand from her, and she guarantees it. She’s got a list, in places like http://www.landreg.gov.uk/ .

So, generally no ‘quitclaim deeds’. No title insurance. When you buy and sell land, you pay your stamp duty (taxation without representation) and the monarch of the day registers the new title.

Apart from that, the process is very similar to that in the US. Professionals who need paying for professional services.