This week I've been analyzing the Microsoft XML Schema Ecma commitment and covenant not to sue. Here are IBM's questions on the same topic
Just before Thanksgiving, someone I know at IBM sent me their position on the Microsoft XML Schema. This was on Monday, which means that it was after the Ecma announcement, but before the covenant was released. I expect that there already is, or will be, a new position that takes the covenant into account, but here are the questions from the 11/22 version that IBM was posing at that time. I’ll then integrate these into the analyses of the Microsoft covenant that I posted earlier this week (the first by comparing the Microsoft covenant to that previously given by Sun, and the second evaluating the Microsoft covenant solely on its own merits): There are a number of questions which customers, the development community, governments and the general public need answered in order to properly evaluate this press release.
1. Will there still be proprietary extensions within the Microsoft XML implementation that are known only to Microsoft and keep the implementation from being fully open and will the format include macros that call on proprietary application?
2. Are there intellectual property constraints which would preclude or make difficult the adoption of this technology as a truly open standard?
3. Are there licensing terms which would preclude implementation by the open source community?
4. Why will it be 18 months before developers will be able to get the full specification from ECMA and if that is due to ECMA’s process why doesn’t Microsoft release it to the public before hand? If my review of the Microsoft covenant is on target, questions 2 and 3 are largely resolved by the release of the covenant, although this assumes that the XML Reference Schema are themselves sufficient to allow a developer to do as much with them as she could with the ODF formats, which is something I am not competent to judge. The first and last questions still seem like good ones to me.
I’ll see if I can get an updated position from IBM next week to see what their official reaction to the covenant may be, and in the meantime, reproduce below the full statement for context and tone.
* * * * * * * * *
IBM and others who have been at the forefront of OpenDocument support and implementation have read Microsoft’s announcement with great interest.
We look forward to working with any company in the deployment of truly open document formats, both here in the United States, and around the world. It is our hope that in the coming days, Microsoft will provide additional important details which will serve to clarify their position. Specifically, does this announcement represent a true commitment to openness?
There are a number of questions which customers, the development community, governments and the general public need answered in order to properly evaluate this press release.
Will there still be proprietary extensions within the Microsoft XML implementation that are known only to Microsoft and keep the implementation from being fully open and will the format include macros that call on proprietary application?
Are there intellectual property constraints which would preclude or make difficult the adoption of this technology as a truly open standard?
Are there licensing terms which would preclude implementation by the open source community?
Why will it be 18 months before developers will be able to get the full specification from ECMA and if that is due to ECMA’s process why doesn’t Microsoft release it to the public before hand?
IBM has been an active participant in past ECMA activities and we look forward to closely following consideration of this proposed standard within that body.
We also remain committed to the OpenDocument Format work that has already been completed in OASIS and which is currently being considered in ISO. Our customers and our industry are best served by a strong commitment to open, industry standards, including open document formats.
Government customers already have recognized just how imperative it is to have a truly open document format to ensure both choice among competing solutions and to preserve their historical data.
We look forward to a meaningful discussion within the IT industry on this subject so we can all better meet these important customers’ needs.
* * * * * * * * *
Note: This entry does not constitute the rendering of legal advice; please consult your own attorney before making any decisions involving Microsoft’s intellectual property rights.
subscribe to the free Consortium Standards Bulletin