On Nov 19, 2003, at 2:43 PM, Alan Dayley wrote:

> Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> Yesterday MS published the XML-Schema for Word .doc files and granted=20=

>> everyone a royalty free license to any patents that they may have on=20=

>> the format. I suspect that they did this precisely because they=20
>> realized that they had more to gain by maintaining the .doc format as=20=

>> the standard for word processing documents than they could  get by=20
>> keeping it closed.
>> I consider this a victory for folks like Derek who had the courage to=20=

>> say "Please resend that .doc attachment in some open format."
>
> EXCEPT, is is not a license for everyone.  MS patented the schema=20
> (whether or not that would hold up in court).  So, if you want to use=20=

> the schema, you need to follow the patent license.  Read it here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp

Seems to be a license to everyone who isn't suing MS for allegedly=20
infringing the suer's patent on the .doc format.
>
> Now, carefully read paragraphs 5 and 6 of the "Patent License"=20
> section.  That part of the patent license is incompatible with GPL. =20=

> That fact is best explained here:
>
> http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3D86136&cid=3D7496572
>
> So, if you use MS schemata in GPL software, you cannot transfer your=20=

> license to use the schemata to someone else, as the GPL requires. =20
> This means that GPL software cannot use the open specs to read and=20
> write the new MS files.  They still have to "clean-room" reverse=20
> engineer them all, just as before.
>
> They have pulished the spec but it cannot be directly used by Free=20
> Software because of the patent and the patent license terms.  So, how=20=

> open is it really?  :^|  And, if you ever plan on writing Free=20
> Software that reads and writes the new MS file formats, don't=20
> contaminate yourself and the Free Software project by reading the=20
> specs.

The argument fails on two counts:

Open format =AD GPL compatible
The GPL doesn't require that *you* be allowed to sub-license the=20
schema. It's enough that the schema is available under a royalty free=20
license.