Apache OpenOffice Community Forum

Groklaw wrote:The bottom line is that my understanding was correct. As long as there are software patents, there is danger, if Microsoft were to choose to ... um.. . go bad, shall we say? The thing about patents that troubles me so is that openness as to a license is one thing, and very fine on its own, but if you are walking on a substratum of patents under your licensed feet, there is still a danger that you'll end up stepping into patent quicksand. More and more, I personally suspect that is the Microsoft strategy.

Wikipedia wrote:Licensing

Under the Ecma International code of conduct in patent matters,[22] participating and approving member organisations of ECMA are required to make available their patent rights on a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) basis.

Holders of patents which concern ISO/IEC International Standards may agree to a standardized license governing the terms under which such patents may be licensed, in accord with the ISO/IEC/ITU common patent policy.[23]

Microsoft, the main contributor to the standard, provided a Covenant Not to Sue[24] for its patent licensing. The covenant received a mixed reception, with some like the Groklaw blog criticizing it,[25] and others such as Lawrence Rosen, (an attorney and lecturer at Stanford Law School), endorsing it.[26]

Microsoft has added the format to their Open Specification Promise[27] in which

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification […]

This is limited to applications which do not deviate from the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 or Ecma-376 standard and to parties that do not "file, maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of such Covered Specification".[28][29] The Open Specification Promise was included in documents submitted to ISO/IEC in support of the ECMA-376 fast track submission.[30] Ecma International asserted that, "The OSP enables both open source and commercial software to implement [the specification]".[31]

Matt Asay wrote:In other words, there is no some news in Microsoft's announcement as it pertains to patents and open source. None. Or very little.

As early as March 2010, the W3C asked Microsoft to submit the protocol to their incubator; however, this never happened.

Mark Ballard wrote:When Microsoft, the open movement's most powerful enemy, saw the UK hoist the open standards banner it did not try to have it pulled down. It tried to have the colours changed.

This is what the public consultation that closes Monday is all about. Microsoft and its cohorts in the proprietary software business tried to persuade the UK to use their wording when they codify open standards in official policy. The government asked for public support: is an open standard what we say it is or what Microsoft says it is?

Microsoft had used a dastardly ingenious tactic: steal your enemy's language of identity and you render him powerless.

Hagar Delest wrote:Is it mandatory to use MS Office file formats? Can't you use ODF?

tonnot wrote:Yes, imagine you want to install MS 'readers' for a goverment agency who owns a lot of MS files...

tonnot wrote:In my case, I 'd want to develop a program to read-write-or modify files using the format of a small company (< 3.000.000 euros of anual billing)

tonnot wrote:What is your final opinion ?

ODF 1.2 Conforming Documents

LibreOffice 3.5 writes valid ODF 1.2
Microsoft Office only officially supports ODF 1.1 and complains that ODF 1.2 and ODF 1.2 extended documents written by LibreOffice 3.5 are invalid.
The warning from Microsoft Office can be safely ignored, and the "Repair" option will import the document.
For users that find this annoying, a workaround is to open Tools->Options->Load/Save->General and set "ODF format version" to "1.0/1.1". However, please note that this will cause some information to be lost when storing documents.

henke54 wrote:...DO NOT TRUST MICROSOFT...

henke54 wrote:use Open Document Format

tonnot wrote:I'd want to know how is it possible that openoffice can legally read & write files using microsoft formats (for word, in example)
Up to the date, I have get answers telling me "to contact an atorney....". Ok, I have contacted a specialized IP (intellectual property) lawyer ..... without success....

I hope your help.
Have miscrosoft claimed to openoffice for illegal use of his proprietary formats ? In the past ? What are going to happen in the future ?
What legal permissions are there in USA and /or UE laws?

June 14, 2013
Slovakia's Supreme Court will intervene in a battle between a textile trader and the country's tax office over a mandatory tax-application that requires the use of a proprietary operating system.
Since early 2012, EURA Slovakia, a textile importer, was fined eleven times (in total 5600 euro), because the trader filed its VAT returns on paper, instead of electronically. The company objects to the fine, saying the administration should not force it to use a specific proprietary operating system.
The trader successfully protested the fines at the regional court in the city of Banska Bystrica.