decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
MA Says MS Agrees to Change XML License To Meet New Open Format Standard
Friday, January 14 2005 @ 06:07 PM EST

Massachusetts is opening the door further. A year ago, as you recall, the state announced agencies were required to give equal consideration to Open Source software. Today, there was a meeting of the Massachusetts Software Council where Eric Kriss, secretary of administration and finance, said that all agencies will be required to store public documents in nonproprietary formats such as HTML or PDF.

Acceptable formats, according to the state's Information Technology Division, are now Rich Text Format v. 1.7 (.rtf); Plain Text Format (.txt); Hypertext Document Format (.htm); Portable Document Format (.pdf) - Reference version 1.5; Extensible Markup Language (XML) v. 1.0 (Third Edition) or v 1.1 "when necessary".

What about Microsoft's notorious patent clause in their Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License? 1

It seems that Massachusetts has been having discussions with Microsoft over changing those terms so MS can qualify, and miracle of miracles, Dan Bricklin's eye-popping notes of the speech indicate that Microsoft told the state of Massachusetts that it is willing to bend to be included.

Bricklin writes: "And, as a surprise, they seem to be coming to an agreement with Microsoft where Microsoft is going to reduce their restrictions on some Microsoft Office file formats to fit under the definitions." Massachusetts now defines "Open Formats" to include formats from a private entity, not a formal standards body, if they meet the state's standard.

Of course, we need to see what Microsoft's new language actually says. For that matter, we have to wait and see if they actually follow through. But the fact that the state has apparently noticed the Microsoft patent license problem is very heartening.

Here's a bit of what Mr. Kriss said, according to Bricklin's notes, which he points out are not, of course, official:

...We're ready to extend the concept of Open Standards to the next step or stage. And I'm making an informal announcement to you. We're looking as always to comments -- feedback -- because it's been terrific. One of the best assets that we have is all of you and the tremendous amount of brainpower that resides in this room and in the greater community, the software industry in Massachusetts. But we are planning to extend the definition of Open Standards to what we are now going to be calling "Open Formats"...

...In our definition, "Open Formats" are specifications for data file formats that are based on an underlying Open Standard developed by an open community and affirmed by a standards body or de facto format standards controlled by other entities that are fully documented and available for public use under perpetual, royalty free, and nondiscriminatory terms.

... An example of an Open Format that we have already characterized is TXT text files and PDF document formats.

...It should be reasonably obvious for a lay person who looks at the concept of Public Documents that we've got to keep them independent and free forever because it is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system. That we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format or locked up in a format that you need to get a proprietary system to use some time in the future. So, one of the things that we're incredibly focused on is insuring that the public records remain independent of underlying systems and applications insuring their accessibility over very long periods of time. In the IT business a long period of time is about 18 months, in government it's about 300 years, so we have slightly different perspective.

Open Formats insure also that there are minimal restrictions imposed on the use of applications needed to access those records and files. And finally, Open Formats support the integrity of public records when we're going to need to do a file conversion as required probably in the course of normal technological evolution. So that if we have something in the format of 2005 and it's going to need to be converted in 2038 into something that we've never thought of yet we need to be able to do that without losing the integrity in the ... of information...

...The Commonwealth will only certify an Open Format designation when minimal legal restrictions exist on the reading and dissemination of government records...

...What I want to discuss informally today is we've been in a conversation with Microsoft for several months with regard to the patent and the license surrounding their use of XML to specify specifically DOC files in Microsoft Office 2003. They have made representations to us recently they are planning to modify that license, and we believe if they do so in the way that we understand that they have spoken about, we will leave it obviously to them to describe exactly what they are going to do, that it is our expectation that when we do issue the next iteration of the standard that in fact the Microsoft what are proprietary formats will be deemed to be Open Formats because they will no longer have the restrictions on their use that they currently have, that would include potentially, and, again, we need to wait for the final designation of this from Microsoft, it would include Word Processing ML, which is the wrapper around DOC files, Spreadsheet ML, which is the wrapper around XLS files and the form template schemas. Obviously, we are going to be talking to other companies and other entities that may have restrictions around the use of those formats and we hope to either get them removed or have further conversations so that as we all move forward together in this wonderful evolution of technology we are going to insure that at least in the government we will be able to reference something a hundred years from now and it won't get lost forever.

You can read about the Open Standards/Open Source policy here. And their Enterprise Technical Reference Model is here and it reads in part:

Implementation of the ETRM will result in a Service Oriented Architecture for the Commonwealth that uses open standards solutions where appropriate to construct and deliver online government services. Agencies are expected to migrate towards compliance with the ETRM as they consider new information technology investments or make major enhancements/replacement to existing systems.

ROADMAP

The Commonwealth is transitioning from siloed, application centric and agency centric information technology investments to an enterprise approach where applications are designed to be flexible, to take advantage of shared and reusable components, to facilitate the sharing and reuse of data where appropriate and to make the best use of the technology infrastructure that is available. The technology specifications and standards detailed in this document are required to achieve the desired target state of a Service Oriented Architecture. These specifications and standards are required for all new IT investments.Given the current state, there will be a period of transition required to fully implement the target architecture.

You can also read an article by the state's General Counsel, Linda M. Hamel, on successfully managing the legal risks of using open source software here. The paper points out that proprietary software has legal risks too and that the benefits of using open source software outweigh the risks. Nevertheless, there are certain steps she suggests to handle those risks. This is an area that is fast-moving, and I think an update may be needed. This is a topic that came up at the GPL seminar I attended, and some of their recommendations were quite similar to this paper, such as having a GPL-aware managment group to make sure the license is complied with. Here are the nine steps governments are encouraged to take to minimize risk:

  1. Adopting and enforcing an open source risk management policy
  2. Identifying and tracking all open source code that is used by the State
  3. Having legal counsel review all licenses for new and existing open source software and explain them to their agency clients
  4. When developing a large system, have legal counsel review all licenses for open source software that agencies propose to use and counsel the agency as to the impact of the lack of warranty and indemnification provisions
  5. Requiring legal review prior to distributing code outside of the state enterprise
  6. Keeping track of modifications
  7. Balancing the Need for Access to the Code with the Need to Limit Source Code Access to Those Who Need It to Perform Their Jobs
  8. Considering market based models for shifting risk and
  9. Documenting all software projects

I suggest updating number 4, since there is surely no lack of indemnification for Open Source software now. I gather number 7 is to implement number 6.

Mr. Kriss specifically asked for feedback. I am told he was asked at the meeting if he'd consider reading feedback from Groklaw, and he said sure. So, welcome to Groklaw, Massachusetts, and Mr. Kriss. We are very happy to have you here. We are grateful for your interest in creating a level playing field for all. I'll let the Groklaw community provide feedback in their comments now, since many, if not most of them, like yourself, I hear, are programmers who are very knowledgeable about the GPL. Some of them, in fact, reside in your state.


1 Microsoft's Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License currently includes this Patent clause:

Patent License

Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas.

Except as provided below, Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas. A "Licensed Implementation" means only those specific portions of a software product that read and writes files that are fully compliant with the specifications for the Office Schemas. The term "Necessary Claims" means claims of a patent or patent application that are owned or controlled by Microsoft and that are necessarily infringed by reading or writing files pursuant to the requirements of the Office Schemas. A claim is necessarily infringed only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming to the specification because there is no technically reasonable non-infringing alternative for reading or writing such files. Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims: (i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties; (ii) covering any enabling technologies that may be necessary to make or use any product incorporating a Licensed Implementation (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet or presentation features or functionality, programming interfaces, protocols), or (iii) covering the reading or writing of files generally or covering the reading or writing of files other than those complying with the requirements of the specifications for the Office Schemas.

If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp."

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas.

You should consult applicable export control laws and regulations to determine whether they apply to your Licensed Implementation.


  


MA Says MS Agrees to Change XML License To Meet New Open Format Standard | 183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here Please
Authored by: fudisbad on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:23 PM EST
For current events and legal filings.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
This subliminal message has been brought to you by Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:39 PM EST
if any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't PDF a proprietary format?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 08:50 PM EST
Isn't PDF a proprietary format? From Adobe??

I'm confused.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two points of concern
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 09:01 PM EST
The following clauses:
Emphasis added
If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef/html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp. "

And:

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

These clauses prohibit (or near enough to be impractical) implementations in Open Source software.

Since OSS appears to be Microsoft's biggest current threat, I would consider these two clauses to be very "descriminatory"

Is there any intention or consideration of removing them?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wonderful article on Linux Bussiness Week.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 09:14 PM EST
New article on "Linux Bussiness Weekly" on how the Kernal is going to
be rewriten to kill off Ms scaring corps into being forced into their stuff (and
if that sentence was confusing, try to read the article!)

Looks like O'Gara and Merkey have become the new tag team in town!

How cool of Jeff to post two posts as PJ and then post as GrokScam.

Hey, life is a conflict of intrests.

Do he and Ms. O'Gara do anything besides take random tdibit of information and
turn them into "hard core facts"? I mean this is getting past the
point of being assinie. She writes a story about something he has been dreaming
about bashes someone that has not even posted.

Oh I know, they "posted". You know what they wanted to say, said it
for them, then yelled the world your rebuttul. I have a two year old you get
along with great.

Once again, no facts, no comment from Microsoft about being agry about not being
able to scare companies into their bussiness, no comments from Linux and Linux
group about "the rewrite". This smaks of poor research and story for
a stories sake.

Say, has any told Mircrosoft that this publication has puubliclily said that
their bussiness strategy is scare customers into their arms? I am sure the
legal eagles over there would LOVE to hear it...

tech_nix_yoda

[ Reply to This | # ]

MA Says MS Agrees to Change XML License To Meet New Open Format Standard
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 09:33 PM EST
Time Check.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OpenDocument
Authored by: billmason on Friday, January 14 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST
What we need is a universal and completely open document format. Apperantly,
OpenOffice.org 2.0 will use a format called OpenDocument. KOffice, Lotus, and
WordPerfect have all signed off that they will support it, and Microsoft was
requested to.

http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=43340&cid=105175

[ Reply to This | # ]

MA Why not add tex to the list?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 04:00 AM EST
www.tug.org

It is open, well supported and in my view is actually the best of the lot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

XML is just syntax, a document format is about *information*
Authored by: Select Star on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 04:54 AM EST
Calling XML or 'plain text' a document format is saying nothing. I can invent a document format for spreadsheets that complies completely with all XML standards, or that is in strict Project Gutenberg 'Plain Vanilla ASCII' format, but which is completely unusable except with my own closed-source $249.99 spreadsheet software. (Or by paying me an annual $99.99 intellectual property license fee. Or by reverse-engineering, of course.)

So as far as I can see, Microsoft does not have any "bending" to do to conform to MA's rules. They already produce standard XML.

Why do people keep thinking that XML is about semantics, while it is only a standard syntax? (And even more surprising to me: why do these MA people think that 'plain text' means 'revealing all information'? So uuencode-d Word documents qualify?)

What MA probably means is: we only want to use file formats from which we could conceivably extract all information ourselves, without paying anyone. XML and 'plain text' are a big help there, but they are by no means enough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MA Says MS Agrees to Change XML License To Meet New Open Format Standard
Authored by: blacklight on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 05:29 AM EST
"It seems that Massachusetts has been having discussions with Microsoft
over changing those terms so MS can qualify, and miracle of miracles, Dan
Bricklin's eye-popping notes of the speech indicate that Microsoft told the
state of Massachusetts that it is willing to bend to be included"

Microsoft may not much of a choice in the matter. If I remember correctly,
Microsoft's Office accounts for at least 80% of the corporation's revenues and
profits. If the state of Massachusetts freezes out the Microsoft format for any
work performed by the Commonwealth's agencies, then it's only a matter of time
before the Commonwealth requires the public to use the open formats. And if the
state of California follows suit, then the Microsoft proprietary formats are
pretty much done for. For Microsoft, the choice is really between bending with
with wind or get broken by by the wind.

Nevertheless, the devil is in the details of whatever relaxed terms Microsoft
comes up with, and we certainly want to see the full monte on Microsoft's terms
before we will venture anything that looks like a final opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is premature, PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 08:13 AM EST

"MA says that MS says ..."  Come on; I'm surprised that somebody with any kind of legal background would give any weight at all to this hearsay.

The only words that mean anything are in the Microsoft restrictive licenses. Currently, the license has a number of restrictive clauses; including the following, which seems to have been carefully crafted by a lawyer with the main purpose of excluding GPLd software:

You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

Microsoft will make changes to get good publicity. Microsoft will make changes to persuade politicians to roll over. But don't tell me that Microsoft will make changes that level the playing field, until you can point to changes in the Microsoft license that clearly make it possible for GPLd software to interoperate with Microsoft's file formats.

Of course the best thing to happen would be for these ridiculous patents that Microsoft has got to be withdrawn. There is no creativity in defining yet another incompatible file format. These patents, which allow Microsoft to crow about its "intellectual property" as though it had contributed something to humanity, should never have been issued.

[ Reply to This | # ]

First glance: Bad for FOSS
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 08:28 AM EST

My comments are below:

A "Licensed Implementation" means only those specific portions of a software product that read and writes files that are fully compliant with the specifications for the Office Schemas.

OK, so I can't change/extend the format unless the specification allows for it. But this language suggests to me that a program that simply changes the format from one covered by this license to one that isn't (e.g converts to open office), is not allowed under the terms of this license. Since the portion of a conversion portion that would write the file in another format is not covered by this sentence, then I have no license to the patents required to write a converter.

The term "Necessary Claims" means claims of a patent or patent application that are owned or controlled by Microsoft and that are necessarily infringed by reading or writing files pursuant to the requirements of the Office Schemas. A claim is necessarily infringed only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming to the specification because there is no technically reasonable non-infringing alternative for reading or writing such files.

Who will be the judge of this? As far as I am aware, MS have patented the _schema_ of the files, not the _method_ of writing them. Therefore this language is suspicious.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, "Necessary Claims" do not include any claims:

(i) that would require a payment of royalties by Microsoft to unaffiliated third parties;

This could change at any time should some third party make a claim to have a patent that covers some part of the schema.

If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:

This is incompatable with the GPL, in the same way as the BSD+advertising clause.

By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.

i.e, no GPL program gets a license. Nice.

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

This is incompatable with the OSI definition of an Open Source license.

All in all this doesn't look too good for FOSS applications that would like to read and write these formats.

Jon

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good news: not that MS does something, but about MA
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 09:19 AM EST
Let's keep this into perspective. I'll believe that MS will give up the leverage
they get from people mailing .doc files at each other when it's pried from their
cold, dead hands.

I think that the good news is not that Microsoft is going to loosen up with
their grip on formats. The control over the format gives them the
(anti-competitive) power they have as little else does. The good news is how
consciously MA is handling things!

Compare this to lots of other governments (UK, here in NL) where the interest of
the public wrt. formats isn't even considered. At one point I almost had to
install IE to do my taxes on-line. That's better now, but lots of government
agencies still communicate -- to /citizens/ even! -- with .doc files. Heck, to
most governments it's just as natural to use Microsoft Office as it is to many
businesses, and not even a single thought is spent on it.

The fact that MA is actually looking into this issue, and giving it the care and
attention it deserves, is what's so good. We still need a lot of better public
awareness here, and this definitely helps.

Cheers,


Emile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Skeptical
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST
I am skeptical that MS will do anything more than attempt to negotiate a
separate license with MA, which will give the state government slightly greater
rights than the rest of us, possibly in return for standardizing on Office.

Even if they do modify the license, nothing will keep MS from changing the
licenses back with the next service pack, after it too late to ban Office from
state offices.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Skeptical - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 01:01 PM EST
    What about Macros or VB Code?
    Authored by: cmg on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST
    Lifting patent restrictions on XML format may be an advancement (if it really
    occurs), but what about Macro or VB code stored in Word or Excel documents?

    If interpretation of the embedded code requires the utilization of the
    proprietary application which generated the code to function properly, then the
    format is not truly open, even if the XML is open and unencumbered by patents.

    My understanding is that adoption of OpenOffice when transitioning from
    proprietary to open source can be significantly hindered by the use of Macro/VB
    code in the proprietary documents (especially in Excel spreadsheets used for
    business and financial analysis).

    Could this a major problem that gets overlooked by paying too much attention
    just to XML?

    ---
    Got linux?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Good approach
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST
    The open formats argument is a great way to promote open source in government,
    and force Microsoft to play fair.

    When governments pass bills that favor open source, then people criticize them
    as undermining the free market. However, there is no argument that people can
    make against open formats for public documents.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    My advice to Eric Kriss
    Authored by: MathFox on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 05:12 PM EST
    Congratulations, you've made the first step to vendor independence.
    It is extremely important for a democratic government that their documents are accessible for the public and that documents remain accessible over huge stretches of time. It is not only Massachusetts that worries about the accessibility of computer files over the ages; governments all over the world are working on solutions. I would recommend Mr. Kriss to seek contact with the people in and outside the US that are working on the same problem. (If he can read Dutch, I recommend that he visits the OSOSS website. Just one of the European efforts on the topic.)

    I think that it is of extreme importance that file formats for data that will be needed in the far (>10 year) future are not encumbered by licenses that limit any competing implementation of programs that process the format; either for rendering, transformation or editing. Both commercial and Open Source programs should be able to read, process and write the file format without encumberance.

    Thank you </soapbox>

    ---
    When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they have problems to accept the truth of the message.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MS Simply makes saving in open XML less functional
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 15 2005 @ 05:27 PM EST
    Why would MS give up it's tricks. My guess is that we will be allowed to enjoy
    saving our documents in an open XML format as long as it serves MS's purposes.
    After that MS propably releases a new fileformat which is required to save your
    documents with all the new bells and whistles. You can still save in the open
    XML format but some features will break. MS won't give us anything if it is not
    forced to, MS is trying to make as much money as it can, an interest that goes
    badly with users interests.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    FSF - India on the PDF standard
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 12:15 AM EST

    FSF - India on use of the portable document format "standard" by government agencies. See here

    The link to this article on FSF-I's homepage is bad.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MA FOSS intiative needs work.
    Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, January 16 2005 @ 08:38 PM EST
    I work in IT for a municipality in Massachusetts. Our county took an initiative
    to link local govt with a peticular county entity in a test program. A key
    component was a Open BSD box in each station driving all communication.

    Got word this week, the test program was so successful that the State is rolling
    it out statewide. We were told to expect a machine from the state to replace
    our BSD box which has been flawless. The new box runs Windows 2003 Server.

    Go figure.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MA Says MS Agrees to Change XML License To Meet New Open Format Standard
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 17 2005 @ 08:41 AM EST
    Why limit those nine steps to Open Source software?
    Or to warrenty and indemnification provisions, for that matter?

    I suggest they change at least the first four steps into the following:

    1) Adopting and enforcing a <b>software license</b> risk management
    policy
    2) Identifying and tracking all <b>licensed software</b> that is
    used by the State
    3) Having legal counsel review <b>all licenses</b> for new and
    existing software and explain them to their agency clients
    4) When developing a large system, have legal counsel review all licenses for
    <b>software</b> that agencies propose to use and counsel the agency
    as to the impact of <b>the licenses</b>

    The rest of them remains unchanged, of course.

    Randakar
    --
    "Very funny Scotty. Now beam down my clothes."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The US Navy, too
    Authored by: DL on Tuesday, January 18 2005 @ 11:31 AM EST

    Add the Department of the Navy (DON) to the list of government agencies requiring open formats.

    It's called DoN Policy and Guidance for Digital Product/Technical Data. Here's a link to it: http://www.dt.navy.mil/tot-shi-sys/tec-inf-sys/gui-acq-con/index.html.

    This page links to 3 PDFs. The first PDF is a cover letter, the second PDF is the directive, and the third link combines the first two. It's about 40 pages long, and worth reading.

    I love this quote: "The formats and conventions identified in this Guidance have been selected to guarantee that the digital data is created, received, maintained, and distributed in common, neutral formats that will allow DON to minimize and simplify DON corporate investments in managing, viewing, and application software."

    As of January 1, 2005, the mandatory format for text documents for the entire DON is XML.

    ---
    DL

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )