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.