=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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)

iD8DBQE/vFgtUIl18h7/dy4RArZ3AJ9iO0OpCT68+EiWoCkudnPXF1/vFACfU4CO
sk6gbWQpK6Stdqo4PXzswUs=3D
=3DPL+i
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----