Advanced

LXer Feature: An Interview with Lawrence Rosen, Open Source Lawyer

Posted by tadelste on · 5 comments
LXer; By Herschel Cohen 		Mail this story
Print this story

Lawrence Rosen publicly backed Microsoft's Open Office XML as sufficiently open to all parties to warrant its use as an open data format. It was because of this stance, I thought LXer readers would be interested to learn upon what basis he came to this decision and to learn if he has any doubts. To say more would be unfair to the interviewee, hence, please read his responses. While the interview is short there is much to consider.

Introduction

Lawrence Rosen, an attorney long associated with open source issues RosenLaw graciously agreed to be interviewed. Since he was preparing to leave on the 5th for over a week, he quickly responded to a smaller set of questions than planned promptly.

Interview

LXer: Let me begin by stating I was surprised (perhaps shocked would be a better word) upon reading of your acceptance of Microsoft's Open XML being a sufficiently open to meet the needs of the State of Massachusetts. Moreover, my initial response predated my running across your earlier critique [1] of what to me seemed to be essentially the nearly equivalent offer by Microsoft. Hence, as my first question:



What difference did you perceive in that latest statement of the Microsoft offer to allow their Open XML to warrant your support?



Rosen:Microsoft's covenant not to sue satisfied my concerns in ways that their earlier license did not: (1) it was consistent with sublicensing, and (2) it required no notice provision to be inserted into our licenses. Once those two conditions were satisfied, then the Microsoft offer was not substantively different from the Sun and Adobe offers for similar technology.

LXer:Do you now think that your backing of Microsoft's Open XML was premature, since they have clarified their openness to the limits of submitting their standard to a European standards body (but well into the future even for submission) and the promise not to sue?

Rosen: No. It is up to the open source community and the companies that support it to join Ecma and help drive the standard technically in appropriate ways. It is also up to the open source community to join OASIS and help drive the OpenDocument standard too.

LXer: What is there in the Microsoft's assurances to stop them from later changes that obsolete this version of their Open (Office) XML?

Rosen: Software always changes. In later versions. Microsoft may indeed try to lock its customers into a proprietary fork. But THIS version is open and we should acknowledge it. If Microsoft drives itself into an unacceptable fork later, we and their customers will complain at the appropriate time. To paraphrase from Wikipedia (you referred me here), "Organizations and individuals that store their data in an open format such as [Microsoft's Open XML] [OpenDocument] avoid being locked in to a single software vendor, leaving them free to switch software if their current vendor goes out of business, raises their prices, changes their software, or changes their licensing terms to something less favorable."

Notice that the same statement applies whether it is [Microsoft's Open XML] or [OpenDocument] format we're talking about.

LXer: There is at least one opinion I have now read that sees the Open Data Format (ODF) as a near impossibility to implement successfully[2].

What future, if any, do you see for a nearly universally agreed upon really open data format being accepted (ODF) or some other variant?

Rosen: I'm completely in favor of open data formats. I'm not sure that a "universal" data format is what's needed, but I have an open mind on that.

What's most important is that the technology experts can work toward open data format(s) without worrying about patent encumbrances. Both Sun and Microsoft have made important contributions toward that goal.

Closing

While I cannot promise, I would like to see if Larry will grant a modest extension to this interview, I have at least one other question I would like to ask. Other suggestions may be may in the comments section. Please note, however, there is no assurance that a second interview will take place.



[1] See Wikipedia entry on Open Document and [your] quote: ".[The Microsoft license] not only prevents transfer or sublicensing of the patent rights,...but it also requires that open source developers put Microsoft's patent notices in our licenses." ... "disputes Microsoft's claims of broad compatibility ...", etc.

[2] Why open document failed in Massachusetts, and how it could have been different. Though s/he stresses how in the title that it was possible, the tenor of the view was nearly uniformly negative.

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: Interview, LXer Features; Groups: Community, IBM, Microsoft, Sun

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (5)

hkwint ·
This is all a bit weak from Mr Rosen, ain't it?

Why does anyone quote from Wikipedia? Microsoft-employees could change the Wikipedia ODF article. BTW, it is already changed, and no longer mentions MS OpenXML as open. It even mentions it as proprietary if I am reading well.

On the next interview, please ask Mr Rosen a comment on

"Microsoft's Format Covenant Fails Comparison Test with Sun's" http://consortiuminfo.org/newsblog/blog.php?ID=1762
tadelste Story submitter ·
I understand why Dino left the practice of law. It's hard to maintain two positions sometimes.
Herschel_Cohen ·
hkwint - yes that's the citation I have stored as my followup question, but it will be a bit more complex than just asking about how good MS's word is not to sue.

I can now confirm we will be sending a few more questions to Larry next week. At the time of my initial request I set seven as the upper limit, hence, I am open to considering readers suggested questions: upper limit two.

Either post here, or email me through the LXer internal email system. I believe this works just for registered readers, so please register if you want input.
sharkscott ·
I want to make sure I am getting this correct,

If Microsoft makes Open-XML the default for the next version of Office, they can just change it with the next Office release and by proxy force everyone who just converted to upgrade anyway.

So Open-XML will be "open" but as soon as Microsoft comes out with another version of Office, they will be putting Open-XML on an island.

It will be open, but it will not work with the new versions of Office going forward and anyone who uses MS Office will not use it because it is not compatible with the newest version of Office.

And what if they decide to not use it at all? An "open" format that is not the default on any office application and is not compatible with MS Office going forward is not going to be used by anyone. What does it matter if it is "open" if no one uses it?

What a joke, yeah its "open" all right, "open" to not be used by anyone.

Please let me know if I got it wrong, I have been reading all the articles and trying to make sense of it. I am not sure I understand it all, but I'm trying. :-)
tadelste Story submitter ·
You did not get it wrong. You got it exactly.

One of the issues not figured out until the filing was posted - they have an open XML wrapper but anyone who uses it must also support undocumented proprietary Microsoft failed XML code, old RTF code and WordML code. No one has access to that stuff.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post