On Nov 19, 2003, at 8:56 PM, Alan Dayley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 05:58 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp
>>
>> Seems to be a license to everyone who isn't suing MS for allegedly
>> infringing the suer's patent on the .doc format.
> - --[clip]--
>> The argument fails on two counts:
>>
>> Open format =AD GPL compatible
>> The GPL doesn't require that *you* be allowed to sub-license the
>> schema. It's enough that the schema is available under a royalty free
>> license.
>
> Well, you could be right. I'll look at it here. (BTW, I am not a=20
> lawyer.)
>
> The two key paragraphs from the MS patent license are (quoted from the
> previously referenced location,
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp:
>
> "By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will=20=
> be
> deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You=20=
> are not
> licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms=20=
> and
> conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
>
> "You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights."
>
> The key paragraph from the GPL is here (quoted from
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html):
>
> "7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
> infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
> conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
> otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not=20=
> excuse
> you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so=20=
> as to
> satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any=20
> other
> pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute =
the
> Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit
> royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive=20
> copies
> directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could=20
> satisfy both
> it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of=20=
> the
> Program."
>
> So, let's say I use the MS schema specifications to add MS Word file=20=
> read and
> write to Kwrite. Will the patent license from MS allow me to GPL the=20=
> code I
> have written to include in Kwrite?
>
> A - The code in question would be a "licensed implementation" of the=20=
> patented
> MS schema.
> B - I cannot "distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms=20=
> and
> conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this [MS patent]
> license."
> C - The MS lincense further restricts that I am "not licensed to=20
> sublicense"
> the "licensed implementation" that I wrote.
> D - If I license the code under the GPL, which I must since it is=20
> based on a
> GPL'ed work, am I not sublicensing the "licensed implementation" which=20=
> would
> then violate the MS patent license?
> E - Since I cannot sublicense the MS patent license, the GPL prohibits=20=
> me from
> distributing distributing the code under it (see the second sentence=20=
> of the
> quote above). The example given by the GPL is if a license did not=20
> have
> royalty-free distribuition, but that does not necessarily exclude =
other
> reasons that a license could restrict against GPL distribution.
>
> That is my thinking and logic, from a geeks mind, not a lawyer. Tell=20=
> me where
> my logic is flawed. Wouldn't be the first time!
Let me try this. The schema is not source code. It is just a rigorous=20
form of documentation. MS isn't showing you any code from Word or=20
authorizing you to use any. You still have to write your own code to=20
parse the .doc Document, display it, accept user input in the form of=20
edits, and save the modified document. Since you don't have any access=20=
to MS's code, you can't possibly have an issue with *copyright*.=20
However your program may employ methods that duplicate those of Word=20
which might cause a problem with *patent*. Except that "...Microsoft=20
hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary=20
Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise=20
distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading=20
and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the=20=
Office Schemas."
So all MS is doing here is saying that they won't sue you for *patent=20
infrigement* if your code uses some method that Office also uses.=20
Nobody is talking about copyright at all.
As far as copyright goes, you own the copyright to the code you wrote.=20=
You can license it however you like.
Consider pdf and rtf. Both are considered open formats because there is=20=
a published spec. You are free study the spec and write your own=20
reader/editor. This doesn't mean that you are free to copy the code out=20=
of Acrobat that writes .pdf or the code out of Word that handles .rtf.
Adobe has also applied for patents on the methods embodied in Acrobat.=20=
That doesn't keep me from releasing my own program for reading pdf=20
format under whatever license I want.
You did make me curious to see how Adobe's patent license compares to=20=
MicroSoft's. I'm DLing it now.
(text/plain)