Novell OpenOffice to Support Microsoft Office Open XML

[darkhatter]

:D



One of the major contributors to the leading open source alternative to the Microsoft Office Suite announced early this morning it will be offering additions to OpenOffice enabling it to support Office 2007's new XML-based Office Open XML format, not as the default, but as an alternative for reading and writing .DOCX files.

For its share of this morning's statement, Microsoft began referring to its suite's format without the word "Office," using instead the designation "Ecma Open XML." Last Wednesday, a version of that format was submitted for general approval by the ECMA standards organization - the same one which helped Microsoft institute its version of Netscape's JavaScript as a standard. A vote on approval of Ecma Open XML is scheduled for this Thursday, and today's announcement of Novell's support most likely all but assures its passage.

In order to make OpenOffice -- not really a Novell-branded product -- support Office (Ecma) Open XML, it plans to release the code for "translators" for .DOCX into the open source community next month, most likely through the OpenOffice.org Web site. Translators for other Office 2007 default formats will follow soon thereafter.

Novell CTO Nat Friedman this morning acknowledged that it will continue to support OpenDocument Format (ODF) as OpenOffice's default "because it provides customer choice and flexibility."

But with ECMA adoption of Ecma Open XML now likely, with the format enjoying support among the world's top three word processors (Corel WordPerfect being #2), and with its next step probably being worldwide adoption by the International Standards Organization, this and other key arguments for ODF are finding the rug pulled out from under them. By the end of this week, Office 2007's default formats may no longer be "owned" by Microsoft.

As ECMA President and CEO John Venator wrote last Wednesday, "Our members believe that approval of Open XML by ECMA as an open standard will be a key advancement to the IT industry and provide critically needed choice in the document format space allowing for greater vendor independence and reduced lock-in...The approval of Open XML by ISO will enhance the choices available to public agencies and provide significant benefits including cost savings to their constituents."

"OpenOffice.org is very important to Novell," added Friedman, "and as our customers deploy Linux desktops across their organizations, they're telling us that sharing documents between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office is a must-have." Microsoft's business division vice president Chris Caposella this morning acknowledged Novell's contribution to (Office) Open XML.

Suddenly the landscape looks very different, as by the end of this week, the world's most widely distributed and supported document format will at last be an open standard...but it won't be ODF.


source - http://www.betanews.com/article/Novell_OpenOffice_to_Support_Microsoft_Office_Open _XML/1165243666

[weatherman]

Novell's hole is just getting deeper and deeper :)

[Mathiasdm]

Novell's hole is just getting deeper and deeper :)
What are you saying?

Allowing OpenOffice to open as many formats as possible is, imho, a good thing!

[darkhatter]

Novell's hole is just getting deeper and deeper :)

](*,) Novell has explained its reasons several times read the novell and opensuse site ](*,)

[StarsAndBars14]

You just can't please some people.

If Microsoft doesn't support open document formats (this is in all likelihood an outgrowth of ESR's conversation with a MS exec some time ago - see http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=208) they bitch. If they DO support open document formats, they bitch. If Novell tries to capitalize on this with the conclusion that Linux or ODF's will gain more of a foothold in the workplace, they bitch loudly.

All I have to ask is. . .why?

[darkhatter]

now if Novell, and Microsoft make windows work with Xen perfectly....

[Lord Illidan]

Good if it can support MS Office Open XML. At least, people migrating to Linux can read their documents better, no more faffing with .doc, etc.

Let's look on the positive side of things...

[darkhatter]

Good if it can support MS Office Open XML. At least, people migrating to Linux can read their documents better, no more faffing with .doc, etc.

Let's look on the positive side of things...

whats the negative side

[Lord Illidan]

whats the negative side

that it is consorting with the Microsoft Empire :mrgreen:

[darkhatter]

just saying the name makes me sick

[ago]

Why not help make Office support ODF instead?

[ago]

Here I found a very interesting video comparing OpenXML to ODF http://ooocon-arnes.kiberpipa.org/media/OXML_Robert_Weir/play.html

[M7S]

Has there ever been an option for OpenOffice not to include support for opening and saving OpenXML-files? It makes at least as much sense as the support for .doc files that we already have.

Winning by excluding is Microsoft's strategy, not ours.

[BWF89]

Anything that provides better document support with Linux (or people who just don't want to pay a million dollars for an office suite) is a good thing.

[StarsAndBars14]

that it is consorting with the Microsoft Empire :mrgreen:

If you want Microsoft to play well with Linux, then the reverse must also be true. Portability is a two way street.

[weasel fierce]

Is this a thing particular to just a Novell version of OO, or will it be generally beneficial to OO as a whole ?

[DoctorMO]

It's not so much that it will support it, we knew this already.

Novell are making a big song and dance about how well their working with Microsoft and a lot of us are wondering where this courtship will lead.

Their words stink right now even if they've not changed course I don't like the propergander their pushing out.

Imagen if your an industry bod, Open XML was thought to be a no go because it has patents on it's access. but now Novell have happily validated it as an effective format not just for computability but for production use.

At least with ODF your sure of no patents because it's an ISO and ISO won't allow patents on their formats. so my guess is that Open XML will never be an ISO, no least because ISO doesn't like to have more than one definition for the same task.

[kylevan]

well, I will personally continue to use ODF for all my documents and export a PDF if I need to share something with a windows/office user.

I am a little pre-disposed to agree with Groklaw on this one, even though PJ is a bit of a hot-head and some of the comments are sensationalist.


There will be a Novell edition of OpenOffice.org and it will support Microsoft OpenXML. (The default will be ODF, they claim, but note that the subheading mentions OpenXML instead.) I am guessing this will be the only OpenOffice.org covered by the "patent agreement" with Microsoft. You think?

Note the role Novell played in Massachusetts also in the ODF story in News Picks. I think it's clear now what Microsoft gets out of this Novell deal -- they get to persuade enterprise users to stay with Microsoft Office, because now they don't "need" to switch to Linux. And they don't need to leave Microsoft products to use ODF. So, while Novell may call this "Novell OpenOffice.org" I feel free to call it "Sellout Linux OpenOffice.org". Money can do strange things to people. And Microsoft knows it.

Just doing some trudging through the /. comments, and found a link with some interesting comments from an M$ employee. http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193501757


The deal with Novell, said Kaefer, will focus initially on an ODF-Open XML translator for Microsoft Word, but similar tools for other applications in the suites, such as their respective spreadsheets, would be addressed later. A timeline for the release of the translators hasn't been set. "We expect that by Jan. 1 we'd have a clear idea about the timelines," Kaefer said. "This will certainly be [a project] of months, not years."

Interesting, although the quote is from Nov. 3. I will say that if the interoperability thing is a two-way street, with ODF and OpenXML being essentially interchangeable between OOo and Office, it's not quite as ominous, although the potential patent liabilities are there, I suppose.

[chaosgeisterchen]

Good morning.

I think it's a rather good thing that Open Office will suppport the DOCX document format in future times, along with ODF. One should not rant against Novell for trying to support one of the formats which will be most widespread in the future. Otherwise, Open Office would be sentenced to death because of incompability.

[vayu]

Here I found a very interesting video comparing OpenXML to ODF http://ooocon-arnes.kiberpipa.org/media/OXML_Robert_Weir/play.html

That is interesting, thanks for that. For me it verifies that deals with a devil are, well..., deals with a devil. (a devil being formats specified by a vendor as opposed to by a community, not MS per say, although, if the shoe fits...)

[ago]

so my guess is that Open XML will never be an ISO, no least because ISO doesn't like to have more than one definition for the same task.

Indeed OpenXML is going through ECMA. It is true that there are other less suspicious standards approved by ECMA such as the ecmascript, but it would come as no surprise if MS chose ECMA exactly because it allows to attach patents to the standard and enforce IP and royalties on its implementations (RAND licensing). ECMA standards are open but not necessarily free (as in freedom and as in beer).

[ago]

MS strategy is to try to avoid at all costs to have the ODF plugin pre-installed, because once users can save, by default, in either ODF or OpenXML, there is little they can do to influence user choices. It does not matter if the ODF plugin is available separately, because 90% of users are not going to bother with such add-ons, the important thing is to NOT pre-install it. How does MS avoid pre-installing ODF? 1) slowing down ODF adoption via lobbying, particularly by governments, 2) having someone to install OpenXML by default on other platforms. Novell is doing with OO exactly what MS does not want to do with MSOffice: installing a competitor plugin by default...

In fact it would far better to keep pushing the existing closed formats (doc, xls, ppt) rather than the new OpenXML. When decision makers have to choose between .doc and ODF it would be an easy choice. If they have to choose between OpenXML+lobbying and ODF, it is far tougher, particularly if OpenXML is supported by default in other platforms while ODF is not supported by default by MS...

You can bet that when you send out an ODF, MS users will tell you they cannot open it. Because that is what MS wants them to tell you, so that they force YOU to use OpenXML (and here Novell comes to help MS). Do the same thing as MS users, do not accomodate them, or you will play MS game. If people cannot open an ODF document, tell them to install the plugin. When you receive OpenXML, tell them you cannot read it, and ask them to install the plugin and save as ODF.

[DoctorMO]

I agree, although for some things i will continue to ask for text files. like the dopes that send us xml soap traces in word .doc files (even though is screws over the utf8 encoding making debugging neigh impossible)

[Polygon]

whoopie. Microsoft is once again advoiding already established standards and decided to make their 'own' standard. And ive also read that this was gonna only be aviable in the novell version of open office,will other distros be able to use it?

and this still does not help office users open files saved in ODT, because the plugin is not installed by default.

[Cynical]

Microsoft has stated it will be an open standard, and has submitted it to the Ecma standardization process. The charter of the Ecma Technical Committee requires it to submit the completed standard to the ISO. Ecma announced on December 9, 2005 that it had accepted Microsoft's proposal to document the format as a proposed standard. It will be referred to as Ecma Office Open XML.

The Ecma technical committee developing the proposal includes representatives from Apple, the British Library, Canon, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil ASA,Toshiba and The United States Library of Congress.[1]

The final draft of the Office Open XML standard has been submitted to the Ecma Secretary General (October 6th, 2006) and the General Assembly of Ecma International will vote on this proposal during their meeting December 7-8, 2006.[2]

A liaison from the ISO/IEC from SC34 has been helping during the standardization proces with the technical committee of Ecma to prepare Open XML submission to ISO/IEC.


The Microsoft Office Open XML format will be available under a free and perpetual license from Microsoft.[3]

There has been a lot of argument about the ability for OSS software to use the format even under this fairly open license. Microsoft has tried to diminish these concerns by officially stating in a covenant not to sue[4] [5] that it will not sue any organisation for using the format if the implementation complies to the official OOXML Ecma standard file formats. This has led to a greater reassurance that the OOXML formats will also be available for use in OSS software as even expressed by OSS licensing expert Larry Rosen.[6]

A further indication of the free and open use of the format was given by Microsoft XML program manager Brian Jones as he presents a legal analysis on the covenant not to sue and also states that there is "no license needed to use the Office Open XML formats."[7]

[edit]


So do we still hate both of them?

[ago]

The royalty-free license under which Microsoft Corp. plans to make its upcoming Office Open XML Formats widely available is incompatible with the GNU General Public License and will prevent many open-source and free-software projects from using them, advocates say.

... more (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1829728,00.asp)



Just ask yourself why MS had to push in all hurry its very own document format instead of just using ODF...

[StarsAndBars14]

Do the same thing as MS users, do not accomodate them, or you will play MS game.

Contradictions FTW?

[dbbolton]

surprise.

[darkhatter]

wow the fud spread fast in here. its been awhile since I read the article but I believe that odt will remain the default but it will support the other. I believe microsoft is doing the same but with XML as the other format. Everyone wins just stop the fud ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

[ago]

wow the fud spread fast in here. its been awhile since I read the article but I believe that odt will remain the default but it will support the other. I believe microsoft is doing the same but with XML as the other format. Everyone wins just stop the fud ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

MS will have ODF plugin installed by default???? IF that will happen we will be proven wrong. But I strongly doubt that. What I bet will happen is that MS will help with a plug-in which will be available, but not installed by default. And there is a huge difference between giving native support for a file format (Novell with OO) or leaving it as an external add-on that in practice most people will not install (MS with MSOffice). MS did not heavily lobby Massachusetts to drop ODF, just to allow it to spread with built-in support.

[Spif]

OpenXML might be open-source, but it is not free as in free speech. I recommend you boycott it and refuse to use it.

[darkhatter]

ubuntu isn't perfectly free I think we should boycott that. Electricity isn't free we should boycott that. you(Spif) aren't perfectly free we should boycott you

[darkhatter]

I just got an Infraction :D :D :D :D :D :D

[ago]

If you want non-free products there are plenty of products around for you to choose from. But please do not feel obliged to pollute the few free offerings that remain. As Mark pointed out, remember that even GNU products for a long chunk of their history had to run on top of proprietary software. This closed layer has been gradually reduced and only in a few set-ups can be eliminated, but even today it is difficult to avoid since you cannot lay the burden on the consumer to do a research for each and every chip he is using. That does not mean that we should invert the route. The fact that there are ludicrous patents on most concepts does not mean that we should be happily use patented frameworks (.Net) or patented file formats (OpenXML).

[misha680]

How do you patent a file format? I understand patenting "concepts," even though that may be controversial too, like let's say some forms of anti-aliasing for fonts or something, but isn't patenting a file format the same as making a patent for, say, putting your last name at the top right hand corner of a report and putting the page number at the bottom center? What's the "idea" involved in a file format?

Or is there something really new about the OpenXML format that is worth patenting (I guess I could see, for example, GIF patents b/c of LZW or maybe MP3 patents because of the inherent compression they use, but seems like if you're using an open format like _XML_ to store text basically, how do you get a patent on that?)

Just curious. Seems a little odd to me.

Misha


If you want non-free products there are plenty of products around for you to choose from. But please do not feel obliged to pollute the few free offerings that remain. As Mark pointed out, remember that even GNU products for a long chunk of their history had to run on top of proprietary software. This closed layer has been gradually reduced and only in a few set-ups can be eliminated, but even today it is difficult to avoid since you cannot lay the burden on the consumer to do a research for each and every chip he is using. That does not mean that we should invert the route. The fact that there are ludicrous patents on most concepts does not mean that we should be happily use patented frameworks (.Net) or patented file formats (OpenXML).

[ago]

The Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License [2003-11-18] "is intended to expand upon the rights that Microsoft grants to certain Microsoft Office 2003 XML schemas... The technical specifications for the schemas include rights under copyright to make reproductions and to display and distribute those reproductions, subject to certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this document is to provide a patent license to individuals and organizations interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to such specifications..."

[Patent License excerpts:] "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 [...]"

"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..."