Linux.com

Feature

How will Office 2003 DRM impact interoperability?

By Dr. Paul Cesarini on February 12, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

In the near future, will we be able to open and access files from our coworkers, our clients, or our students? Will we be able to attach these files to email, for efficient and convenient dissemination, or print them if needed? Will we collectively be forced into expensive and in some cases platform-specific software migrations, just to maintain document interoperability?

A different perspective: OpenOffice.org

Louis Suarez-Potts, OpenOffice.org's community manager, has another take on Microsoft's DRM efforts. He argues that the point of files using DRM is not to simply to make them more secure, but rather to enable an end-run around interoperability. "On a superficial level, the point of DRM is to limit free access to only those applications able to read DRM-delimited documents", Suarez-Potts said. "Put another way, MS Office will generate a class of files which only people with the same kind of MS Office will be able to open, let alone edit." Additionally, Suarez-Potts added that "[OpenOffice.org] will doubtless have better equivalents, ones that are just as secure and conceivably also as limiting."

Suarez-Potts also believes that Microsoft's strategy is unlikely to succeed, due to the required software investment in both server and client sides -- particularly since both the sender and receiver of IRM-enabled Office files would have to buy in to these upgrades. "Effectively," Suarez-Potts added, "it's a radically limiting strategy whose rhetorical bark is far worse than its effective bite. MS wants people to believe all will be using this feature -- but that set of users will first have to buy that particular brand of MS Office."

Given that Microsoft has apparently made the SDKs for both Windows Rights Management and the Office 2003 XML schema publicly available, the potential may exist for Windows versions of OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and similar applications to address these interoperability concerns. However, since these SDKs have only recently been made available, further examination of them will be required before any decisions are made.

When asked about the possibility of OpenOffice.org eventually being able to access DRM-enabled files from Microsoft Office, Suarez-Potts sees this as a largely uphill battle. He said that "the answer is probably, but also that it would be immensely difficult ... The XML schema have nothing to do with DRM, as that XML schema can be thought of as a house's blueprints, but the DRM as its material lock and door." He also added that OpenOffice.org certainly remains interested in the notion of furthering compatibility between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office, even potentially including Microsoft's DRM.

What about Sun?

As of late 2003, Sun had no plans to incorporate DRM into StarOffice. Jeorg Heilig, Sun's Director of Software Engineering, said that "we do not have plans to manage rights to a document. Nevertheless, the concept document states our plans on working on digital signatures and encryption using open APIs and open standards (such as XML signatures)."

Heilig said that "It would be a requirement for supporting DRM to have access to these APIs, but also to be able to replace the backend infrastructure that manages the certificates and the authentication behind the APIs." He added that he did not see "any indications that this information is going to be available soon. In the end it is the people who send documents around who will decide on how useful this feature is ... I rather see people asking for a back end infrastructure that is based on public standards and implementations from multiple vendors to choose from."

Heilig also cautioned that much of the perceived benefit of DRM often becomes an unintentional liability in the long term. "Nowadays, it is sometimes impossible to access documents written even 20 years ago on a vendor whose product has changed or is no longer supported. Without standards, users are left to the whims of the vendor."

For now, StarOffice features a simple password protection option that can be used on any StarOffice file. While not exactly a high-tech solution, Heilig said this method "provides a basic level of document security for those who need it, when they need it."

At the time, the SDKs for Windows Right Management Server were not yet available. Whether or not their recent availability will change Heilig's mind likely depends on how usable the SDKs are, whether these SDKs will only be released for the Windows platform, and whether or not it will be feasible to incorporate RMS compatibility into StarOffice. Whether or not Microsoft releases SDKs for back-end compatibility -- which is unlikely -- will also be a deciding factor. For right now, Heilig said even though the SDKs were available, he did not foresee using them in StarOffice due to these SDKs being platform-specific.

Office 2004: Second-class citizen?

With the recent announcement of Office 2004 at MacWorld Expo last month, it is easy to wonder how Office-to-Office interoperability with DRM-enabled files would work. Very little of the Office 2004 feature set has been made publicly available, and despite touting some Mac-only features, basic compatibility with Windows RMS and Office 2003 has not been mentioned at all.

Unfortunately, the outlook is not good. A spokesperson from Microsoft's Mac BU now confirms such compatibility will not be possible with Office 2004 and added that Microsoft has "no timeline to announce on supporting this IRM technology on the Mac." She did state, however, that the file formats will be the same and that "Mac Office and Win Office and Office 2004, v. X, 2001, and 98 users are able to open non-protected and password protected files from Office 2003 for Windows users."

As a workaround for this pending lack of interoperability between Office 2004 and DRM-wrapped Office 2003 files, she suggested users instead opt to password protect their Word and Excel files. She also added that the Mac BU is interested in learning how Mac OS X users of Microsoft Office will want to incorporate DRM functionality on their Windows networks, and stressed that they "will evaluate our Mac customers' feedback and needs and work to support them appropriately."

What of indirect compatibility? For example, Microsoft has for some time offered a Rights Management Add-on (RMA) plug-in for the Windows version of Internet Explorer, to enable those not currently using Office 2003 to still be able to have limited access to DRM-enabled Office 2003 files.

A second Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that there are no plans to offer a browser plugin, or similar RMA, for the now-discontinued version of Internet Explorer for Mac OS X or earlier, nor are there any plans to offer an RMA for non-Microsoft browsers such as Safari or Mozilla. However, she said that the RMA specifications are "fully documented to enable third-parties to produce similar functionality should they choose to do so."

Interoperability: An uncertain future

Despite the publicly available SDKs for Windows Rights Management Services, Microsoft's efforts to wrap documents in DRM will likely succeed or fail based on how much of the currently installed user base buys into it. As Microsoft is already having serious problems convincing existing customers to upgrade to the latest versions of Windows and Office, achieving a critical mass of users for Windows RMS seems challenging at best.

Suarez-Potts doubts this critical mass will occur. He believes Microsoft's insistence on pushing proprietary DRM methods to promote document security is "a disastrous ploy" at best. "Rhetorically", he added, "it is a strong one, but I am a little skeptical all will succumb, once they realize what the game is (that is, that your interlocutor must also posses your like application, and that it does not really make your file that much more secure, only limits some distribution of it). A better response by [OpenOffice.org] is to come up with a real, honest-to-god secure system that really does make docs secure and, if wanted, limits distribution (e.g., to a select group only), using tools that have been vetted by the open source community."

Dr. Paul Cesarini is an assistant professor in the Advanced Technological Education program at Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. His current research and work focuses on digital rights management and digital asset management, and the slow but steady erosion of fair use in higher education and at home.

 

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on How will Office 2003 DRM impact interoperability?

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

MS Position clear -- No interoperability.

Posted by: Variola Cola on February 12, 2004 10:32 PM
MS Has made its position clear. There will be no interoperability. Not only are there the past practices as indicators, but also present ones such as being the odd man out in Oasis, going after an XML patent, and locking the MS-Word XML schema. Not only does this put control of the document format in the hands of a single company, it puts the entire life cycle of that format in the same hands.


The format issue is a severe problems for public records, especially in countries with strong freedom of information legislation. For countries like the UK and France, it's less of an issue. In Sweden, Finland and Norway it would violate the ability to use these documents in the future, say after MS has moved on to another format or had its assests frozen pending legal action.


This from a company which has historically used incompatible file formats to leverage new sales. Of those using MS-Word today, how many would still be using Word 97 if not for the change in file formats?

#

Re:MS Position clear -- No interoperability.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 12, 2004 11:20 PM
I thought Word 97 could read the Word 2003 files even today? Wasn't it the change from Word 95 to Word 97 and the annoyed users what convinced them that they better stick with one format? I expect there are some features of later versions that Word 97 can't render but the basic file format is supposed to be the same.

Speaking as a Mac user who has to use Office X on a daily basis I think it is a dreaful piece of rubbish and the sooner we get a native Aqua version of OpenOffice the better. Office X is one of the most buggy and unstable pieces of software it has even been my misfortune to use and even with its much vaunted file format compatibility it still has trouble with files created on Windows version of Office and vice versa. I have been fighting with PowerPoint on my mac editing a Windows PowerPoint file and the damn thing has been crashing so much I am almost despairing. Not to mention the font problems that Word has when transfering files back and forth. Yuck!

#

Re:MS Position clear -- No interoperability.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 02:35 AM
I thought Word 97 could read the Word 2003 files even today?

Actually, no. I have a fried who was forced to "upgrade" because of the file incompatibility.

#

You have known this.

Posted by: ccchips on February 12, 2004 10:57 PM
It strikes me as odd that I keep reading these complaints over and over again. If you feel this way, why do you accept advertising from them? Why are people continuing to accept money from people whose objectives run counter to anything but what makes them money?

I think it's because you want money, too. Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is, and put something down on activist movements which are trying to stop this kind of behavior?

I'm thinking, in particular, of another "news" web site, "news.com." Every time I go there, I smell money and greed. Once in awhile, they throw a bone to people who don't believe in those things, but generally, what I see there is "Who should you invest in?"

I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I don't buy Microsoft products for anything I do. Sometimes that's inconvenient, but I don't care. If I could find work at a company that didn't use them, either, I would.

Don't get me wrong; I think some of their work is top-notch. But then again, I want my own brother in jail for the rest of his life were he a murderer, even though he might be the best auto mechanic in the world.

If people could convince Microsoft to stop behaving in this manner, and to be a leader encouraging others to stop as well, I'd feel different.

#

Warning... OFFICE 2003 is Viral in it's actions

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 02:03 AM
My office mainly uses Office97. One person has OfficeXP and it works mostly with all the Office97 files, there are formating issues but no too bad.

We have many common files on the file server that we all write to. About 2 months ago, office document after office document became broken. We lost a lot of work hours on trying to fix the problem and redoing lost work. But up until about two weeks ago, nothing we did seemed to make a difference. One day the file would be ok, the next it was toast.

We called a meeting specifically to talk about what was going on. We knew it wasn't a virus. We knew we weren't being hacked. What we thought it was, was our disgruntled mill-wright who doesn't know that much about computers but uses some of those files that constantly became corrupted. We were pretty sure he was sabotaging them.

The meeting included our HR-Director, who wasn't part of our trouble-shooting process up until this meeting. Right at the start of the meeting, after we explained these files were being corrupted and we needed to get to the root of the problem, the HR guy says, "I don't have any problems opening those files at all. In fact, I was wondering why you guys kept deleting any changes I made to them as soon as I made them."

We were all like, "What?!"

"Yeah, I've been looking at those files and doing some grammer correction, and just checking up to see where you guys are at." He is also faily new, and was reading what we were doing so he could be more familure with what we did.

Now we had a viable lead. Investigating brought out that he bought a laptop that had Office2003 on it. And all he had to do was OPEN the file and it was no longer usable under Office97, and if corrections were made, unusable under OfficeXP.

If Office2003 isn't backward compatible to Office97, then what's the point? Breaking compatiblity? In business? How smart is that?

This is why MS is bad people. I can see they want to make tech better, and having the yoke of having to deal with old tech a pain in the rump. But in business, document's life spans can be decades, and making digital office documents change formats every few years is just plain unacceptable.

Office2003 is a dud in my opinion. It offers nothing other than it guarantees you will be taking ibuprofen a lot more in your future.

#

Re:Warning... OFFICE 2003 is Viral in it's action

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 02:48 AM
Why don't you upgrade to OpenOffice.org? Or StarOffice?

It's a great piece of software. OOo is more compatible with MS Office 2003 than Office97 is. It has pretty much all the features of MS Office (no Outlook equivalent) and it has several important features not present in MS Office. Some that come to mind include:

* PDF export.
* Draw (Vector Graphics program).
* Files are smaller and much more reliable (bye-bye file corruption!).
* It is inmune to MS Office viruses (bye-bye MyDoom, Blaster, etc).
* It's certainly cheaper.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

There are ways to make the transition very painless. For one, you can have both OOo and MS Office installed on the same machine. This can help people get used to them.

If you want to discuss this, send me an email (dcarrera AT openoffice.org).

Cheers,
Daniel.

OpenOffice.org volunteer.

#

OOo not "all that", but thanks anyway developers

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 07:17 AM
Daniel,



OOo for GNU/Linux users is certainly a godsend. But it isn't "all that".



OOo may have much better file compatibility with MS Office than StarOffice 5.2 did, than Abiword does, and than Kword/Koffice does. But there are major problems with it as well.



I'm no programmer, but a few F/OSS programmers I know, some with over 20 years experience programming, and who started early with Linux and with GNU, have stated that the OOo code is a mess. Kludge upon kludge upon kludge. And they gave examples, but I didn't memorize them.



What I can tell you from personal experience though, is that OOo is an absolute dead weight. It takes an unacceptable amount of resources to start it, and to run it. And this is after all the optimization tricks. And this includes the latest version.



While the resource issue will be less and less of an issue going forward as processors get faster and memory gets cheaper, this should not be the solution. The solution is to fix the code. Pre-loading is not the solution either.



And this isn't my major issue. My issue is that I get BSOD's, OOo style. I get illegal operation window popups, with OOo exiting immediately thereafter. This has caused the BSOD nightmares to return. While I've figured out a few of the illegal operation popups are related to permissions when writing/saving a file, there is absolutely no excuse for this. Usually the data is recoverable, but sometimes it is not.



No excuse.



We can argue the merits over features (and they are getting better), but the resource issue and the illegal operation (I remember the illegal part, but maybe operation is another word, can't think of it right now, I think operation is correct) issue are major unresolved problems. These issues need to be fixed now, not taking on new features.



And btw, pdf export? Big deal. Other FS programs had it before OOo. Let's bring out the party favors when I can import a pdf, edit it, and then export it.



Of course, I must also state, thanks to everyone who have contributed to OOo, you've made it possible to co-exist with the MS Office world, and you've made it possible to take on MS on the desktop. Thanks to all contributors, including you Daniel.

#

Re:OOo not "all that", but thanks anyway developer

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 11:13 AM
OOo for GNU/Linux users is certainly a godsend. But it isn't "all that".

What do you mean by that? I am certainly very familiar with it, as I am a very active contributor. All the things I said about OpenOffice.org are true.

OOo may have much better file compatibility with MS Office than [snip] But there are major problems with it as well.

What does that have to do with my post? I said it had better compatibility with MS Office 2003 than Office97 does. This is correct.

In fact, there have been a few cases where MS Office cannot read a file even on the *same* version, on the *same* computer, and the file was read correctly by OOo.

Yes, there are problems with importing DOC files. But there are problems with the DOC format itself.

I'm no programmer, but a few F/OSS programmers I know, some with over 20 years experience programming, and who started early with Linux and with GNU, have stated that the OOo code is a mess.

What does that have to do with my post? Does that mean that it's more expensive? Or that it doesn't have PDF export? Those are the kind of things I said about it.

OOo's codebase spans about 15 years of development and contains twice as many lines of code as the Linux kernel. Many parts of the Linux kernel are a mess too.

What I can tell you from personal experience though, is that OOo is an absolute dead weight.

This has a lot to do with the history of the codebase. Back when the code was started, there weren't any good, viable toolkits that could be used for a cross-platform product like OOo. Therefore, most of what the system is supposed to provide had to be done from scratch.

Now the codebase is being reworked to take advantage of the existing toolkits, and the development is paying off. Version 1.0 is faster than StarOffice was. Version 1.1 is noticeably faster than 1.0. The next version, (2.0 due next year) will be faster yet. The graphics layer is being redone to take advantage of native toolkits (Gtk+ in the case of Linux). This will make OOo faster, and make it look more native.

While the resource issue will be less and less of an issue going forward as processors get faster and memory gets cheaper, this should not be the solution. The solution is to fix the code. Pre-loading is not the solution either.

And when did I say any of that??? Show me where I said any of those things.

And this isn't my major issue. My issue is that I get BSOD's, OOo style.

Have you reported an issue? We can't read minds. All I can see is that OOo doesn't crash on *my* computer. If it crashes on yours I need you to tell me so and help me pin-point the problem so it can be fixed.

Send me an email directly and I'll try to get this problem resolved (dcarrera AT openoffice.org).

These issues need to be fixed now, not taking on new features.

Have you taken a look at IssueZilla lately? Do you even have a clue of what we are working on?

Crashes *always* take priority. And after that, speed. Most of the work we are doing is in the speed front because, as of version 1.1.0, OOo really is very stable.

And btw, pdf export? Big deal. Other FS programs had it before OOo.

Other FS programs generally use standard Unix/Linux tools to do it. OOo did too before version 1.1, but only under Linux (by using those tools). What's new is that now OOo has PDF export *natively*. It works on all operating systems (even Windows). And the deal with it is not that it's hard to do, but that it's a feature that many people had been clamoring for. Currently, one of the most popular reasons we hear of people switching to OOo for is precisely PDF export.

Of course, I must also state, thanks to everyone who have contributed to OOo

Adding a small note of thanks as an afterthought does not justify your poorly researched and unduly-critical post. I spend 30 hours a week working on this project, and I don't appreciate someone telling me that this is all just a "dead weight".

Daniel Carrera.

A very active OpenOffice.org volunteer.

#

Relax, dude!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2004 08:53 PM
Take a chill pill. Geez.

Thanks for all your work on OOo. It is a great product. I use it every day. But, you need to not take a few negative comments personally.

You brought up reasons why OOo is good. He brought up DIFFERENT reasons why he does not like it. This does not make your good reasons invalid.

You come across as an unreasonable zealot. Is that what you want? Is that what you want people to percieve about OOo? Chill out, man!

#

Re:Relax, dude!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 07:04 AM
There's nothing wrong with a zealot. Given that HE is making OpenOffice.org for you, you should be thankful.

It's not as if every marketing department out there doesn't come off the same way. You get a little passionate about your product is all.

Heck, I'm just a user and I get passionate, and why not? It's a great product!

#

Re:Warning... Is this true?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 26, 2004 08:32 AM
I'd like to see more comments about the incompatibilities shown in these comments about m$office incompatibilities. Is this really true? Can others verify it? I have not used m$office in eons...I am an OOo and Linux user. But I have passed along this tale, a couple of times. Someone came back and said that using "Save As" will allow you to save to an earlier version, and that opening a file should not alter it a bit. Both of these comments make sense. But they do not agree with the tale I am replying to...

I also know that a least one sysadmin has rec'd a "free" copy of office 2003 as a sampler. Put the two stories together, multiply it by numbers of users, and this tale sounds very bad for businesses. I would like to learn if others are experiencing this as well.

#

Nothing new

Posted by: SarsSmarz on February 13, 2004 03:06 AM
Having fun at the office running Office XP under NT4. You have always been able to destroy doc files by passing them back and forth between people with different printers. MS has always made it difficult to penetrate the latest doc format.

At least our archive files are all pdf. That causes enough problems since most of them are scanned pdf's with some search words extracted by OCR. And did you ever try to edit a pdf file? Or save one of those stupid 'form fill' pdf files?

#

No,office please... :)

Posted by: GoksinAkdeniz on February 13, 2004 08:04 PM
The subject line may look offensive, but it is not. In fact it is the all time strategy of M$. I remember the time I used Lotus office suite on the first versions of M$ Windows. M$ suddenly akltered code of nest generation OS which caused all users to switch to M$ Office suite. Result; Lotus bought by IBM. M$ is still loyal to its stratagy. DRM is another act of forgery. You have to by all M$ stuff in order to use it in full capacity. new software suites are threats to M$ as they form an alternative to M$ suite.I run open source applications. I may have to access the files if the information is free.If not, the it is not information.I still think that confidental data should be submitted encyripted. Otherwise it makes no sense except locking down all users. It is just brutality.

#

why drm for privacy and security???

Posted by: Sam Leathers on February 15, 2004 12:35 AM
Wouldn't it make much more sense to take the pre-existing format of a document, and then instead of changing the format, run something like pgp to encrypt/sign it, send it to someone and have them unencrypt it? It seems so much more secure; however I have not done the research to see if this is a possibility, but I don't see why it couldn't be. I can sign and encrypt all my e-mails, what would be the difference with a document? If so, this would be an awesome feature to add into open office, that I'm sure lots of businesses/governments passing around "top-secret" information, could value from.

just a suggestion...

#

Well

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 17, 2004 03:38 AM
Since Office 2003 DRM depends on Active Directory and Windows at the back-end, no one is using this.

#

Start the Campaign for free SW

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 19, 2004 01:33 AM
I believe it is time that the community all around the world starts with requirements against their governments to introduce Linux & OpenOffice. Both are mature enough already, and at the end we pay, when they throw away the money buying M$ $hit (and feed the beast). This way, M$ will cut themselves off, since anyone in business has sooner or later to communicate with some kind of authorities, and for sure nobody will have 2 different SW... Then, Bill can live on his isolated island - and, he will be forced to install OpenOffice, since he will not be able to use his shitty SW to send or receive anything to anyone...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya