On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:16 pm, Chris Gehlker wrote: > Let me try this. The schema is not source code. It is just a rigorous
> form of documentation. MS isn't showing you any code from Word or
> authorizing you to use any. You still have to write your own code to
> parse the .doc Document, display it, accept user input in the form of
> edits, and save the modified document. Since you don't have any access
> to MS's code, you can't possibly have an issue with *copyright*.
Correct. My code is my code, copyright by me.
> However your program may employ methods that duplicate those of Word
> which might cause a problem with *patent*. Except that "...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."
But, the code is a "licensed implementation" of Microsoft's patent. I own =
the=20
copyright on the code but Microsoft owns the patent on what the code does. =
=20
(Assuming the patent is valid, but that is another debate.)
So, can "make, use, sell" and so on, my "licensed implementation" but I hav=
e=20
no controlling rights on what the code does.
> So all MS is doing here is saying that they won't sue you for *patent
> infrigement* if your code uses some method that Office also uses.
> Nobody is talking about copyright at all.
>
> As far as copyright goes, you own the copyright to the code you wrote.
> You can license it however you like.
Here is where it gets difficult. The code is copyright by me but the paten=
t=20
license does not allow me to sublicense the patent. So if I use copyright=
=20
law to GPL my copyrighted code, is that a sublicense of the patent license?=
=20
This is a perfect example of why software patents are so bad! I own the=20
copyright to my code but the methods it implements are patented by MS. Who=
=20
then has the controlling "intelectual property?" Does my copyright out wei=
gh=20
their patent? Do you have the money to fight MS and find out? Does any Fr=
ee=20
Software project have the money to go to court and find out? Microsoft has=
=20
the money to enforce their patent and they know it!
> Consider pdf and rtf. Both are considered open formats because there is
> a published spec. You are free study the spec and write your own
> reader/editor. This doesn't mean that you are free to copy the code out
> of Acrobat that writes .pdf or the code out of Word that handles .rtf.
But, is the format patented? MS with this patent license on software is=20
purposefully mixing copyright and patent concepts. It would cost two boat=
=20
loads of money or an act of Congress to clear the confusion.
> Adobe has also applied for patents on the methods embodied in Acrobat.
> That doesn't keep me from releasing my own program for reading pdf
> format under whatever license I want.
That is fine. But does their license prohibit sublicensing? The MS XML=20
schema patent license does.
> You did make me curious to see how Adobe's patent license compares to
> MicroSoft's. I'm DLing it now.
I would like to know how it compares also.
I am also watching for any reactions from FSF or some other "law smart" gro=
up=20
to perhaps add more intelligence to this discussion than I have.
Alan
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
(text/plain)