Public Request For Microsoft To Release Deprecated File Formats 154
SgtChaireBourne writes "NLnet, a Dutch foundation for an open information society, has publicly called for Microsoft to release its deprecated formats into the public domain. The maker of Office has made large efforts during the last year to move against the OpenDocument Format (ISO/IEC 26300). These efforts have been producing a lot of commentary regarding the amount of data bound up in the Redmond-based company's proprietary specifications. It's a nasty situation to end up with files that cannot be read because the sole vendor with the documentation for the files has withdrawn permission. ODF is the way forward, or a step forward at the least, with new documents. But for the old documents in the legacy formats, they cannot be read without supporting software and that support requires full access to the specifications."
release a convertor and support legacy! (Score:1, Insightful)
1. release a convertor. (it's available)
2. support legacy via providing the convertor instead of actually reading the deprecated formatted document.
we want to move forward, to adopt a standard -give some time to deprecated formats by supporting them till some time (a deadline), and provide conversion tools for free.
nobody wants a html fiasco when it comes to other file formats.
Microsoft cant do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Code are descriptions of formats.
When Microsoft was forced to disclose information about the SMB format to EU anti-trust department they tried to give them the source code - complaining that it cost them too much to describe the format.
So they are sadly asking for something that dont exists.
Not neccessary (Score:2, Insightful)
No such thing (Score:3, Insightful)
What specifications? (Score:4, Insightful)
Asking Microsoft for the spec will not mean simply taking an existing doc off the shelf and handing it over. It will mean either handing over the code for the old products that read and write those formats or spending person-years of effort combing through that code, constructing a specification, and then, somehow, testing the spec.
I wouldn't hold my breath for either.
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost and Mechanics of Certain Free Tools (Score:3, Insightful)
As noted in another post [slashdot.org] about this article, it may be that there is no "format" other than "the code". If so, then the only free tool that is cheap to make is a wrapper around a complete application that just calls only part of that application. If so, making the wrapped tool free means giving away the entire program, not just the file part. In effect, then, this amounts to requesting that old versions be made free. Any difference between your proposal and asking old versions of their editor to just be made "free" (for whatever free you might be meaning) is just words, I suspect--nothing semantic.
Of course, this comes back to the question of whether there should be software patents at all, and whether software copyrights should have the immensely long durations that they do. Indeed, at some point, probably much shorter than happens now, having old tools be free so they can be recycled for other purposes may not be bad. It might even give vendors a kick in the pants to move faster to make newer tools be different enough that the old tools didn't threaten them. But bypassing a proper change in software copyright and patent law and instead just beating up on certain people who have things one wants does not seem the best approach to me.
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, why should it be explicitly limited to old formats? All data should be in open formats for a huge number of reasons, archiving is just one of them.
And formats should be opened up while they are new, once they become old the specs often get lost (try opening a really old word document in the current version), often there never were any formal specs beyond "whatever the program outputs".
Finally as to other formats, yes they should request the release of other proprietary formats, but they are going after the biggest target first as it affects more people... As noble as it would be to get the format specs for Wordworth on the Amiga (a long forgotten app, and its original vendor wont sell me a new copy, give it to me for free, or release the source or any specs, their official line is that my documents are lost), this would only benefit a very small number of people. Also, microsoft disclosing their old formats would set a powerful precedent for others in the industry to follow.
Re:Yeah but (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the company has stopped earning money on a format, they should open it up under an appropriate license. (Patents might play a part, in an ideal world they would not but let's play in this world for now). Microsoft does not make any money on Excel97. Why on earth be so mean to their previously paying customers that they refuse to open that obsolete standard?
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone really cared about proprietary formats so much, they always had the option of saving their documents (or at least backups) in neutral formats like rtf. AFAIK, virtually every version of Office has supported these kinds of open formats. People don't use them because the VAST majority of users don't give a rat's ass about the propriety vs. open source issue. Is that MS's fault? Is it their responsibility to promote the open-source/open-document movement? Is it their obligation to roll over and give you all their trade secrets so you can develop an open-source competing product and drive them out of business?
Re:They might not have it... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the company I work for, we usually do sit down and document the byte-layout of that file. When this was neglected, it has invariably come round and bit us in the ass
Re:release a convertor and support legacy! (Score:5, Insightful)
we want to move forward, to adopt a standard -give some time to deprecated formats by supporting them till some time (a deadline), and provide conversion tools for free.
Yes, we'd like to have a standard, and one which is readable for a long period of time - which is the point of the whole ODF standard in the first place. The problem with the proprietary formats is that they have every reason to change and a considerable number of reasons to drop support for "deprecated" formats.
I used to work for a medical transcription unit, and we generated over 250K documents annually. It is a non-trivial exercise to convert those documents from one format to another. That doesn't include the loss of formatting which occurs, and there are instances where the formatting is important. This loss occurs even when moving between versions of the same software - just take a Word 97 document and translate it to 2K and then to 2003, and you'll see it.
Your idea is feasible if it's a one-time function. That is, there is a standard format which will be used for a considerable length of time, and you need to translate your older documents into that standard. If you're going to have to do it ever two or three years, it's going to be a non-starter.
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:3, Insightful)
MSFT is a for profit company which means they should sell products and services people are asking for. People are asking for converters for other OS's. MSFT doesn't even provide converters for OSX an OS which it does support. let alone for other OS's.
If your business is totally dependant on trade secret file formats then you had better be very careful. As the one day that some one builds something better your screwed.
A Little Overblown (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
and seeing as the monopoly office suite is made by the same people who make the operating system, it would be trivial for them to not allow a competitor's products to run.
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inaccurate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of a free market is that if the above conditions are not true, you should be able to do business with someone else, instead.
Relate this to Microsoft as you will. But keep in mind a few things...
- There are very few viable (The word "viable" can scope quite a few meanings, here.) competitors to Microsoft in many situations.
- Many times their real customer is not you, but someone else - a supplier of one sort or another. Your involvement may be many-times indirect.
- Microsoft has been found guilty of illegal monopoly practices in a court of law.