Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: News
Sun denies report it is 'selling out' OpenOffice
By Jem Matzan and Chris Preimesberger
on
September 15, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
UPDATED Today a site called LinuxElectrons posted a story categorizing Sun Microsystems' recent 10k filing as "probably as close as Microsoft can legally get to buying OpenOffice.org." Sun, however, strongly disagrees with this characterization and listed several clarifications for us. In short, it's just not true.
The 10K filing, submitted as the result of a landmark, $1.6 billion agreement last April Fool's Day between the two companies, lists three exhibits that deal specifically with the highly publicized Microsoft settlement agreement. The meat of the document states that Microsoft reserves the right to pursue patent infringement claims against OpenOffice.org, but allows for indemnification against such claims against StarOffice. StarOffice is a commercial office suite sold by Sun that is based on the free OpenOffice.org project.
"Sun is strongly committed to OpenOffice.org," May Petry, a Sun Microsystems spokesperson, told NewsForge today. "The patent protection indemnification is a common, standard practice among software corporations," she added.
Like many other companies, Sun protects its customers against patent infringement and other so-called "intellectual property" claims. OpenOffice.org is not a Sun product, but Sun does support it and contributes substantially to its development. "OpenOffice.org is not disadvantaged by this agreement," said Petry, clarifying that the 10K filing did not bring to light any change in policy or practice regarding the OpenOffice.org project.
So the 10K only outlines StarOffice's specific indemnification against patent claims from Microsoft -- something corporations do all the time. LinuxElectrons' claim that Sun must legally aid Microsoft in a claim against OpenOffice.org is "ridiculous," said Petry. "We are and always have been committed to the OpenOffice.org community."
A Microsoft spokesperson issued a general statement late Wednesday to NewsForge but refused to address the topics discussed above: "This agreement is a component of a larger arrangement with Sun that constituted the April settlement between Microsoft and Sun. As is common when two large patent holders structure a patent agreement covering many products, the Sun/Microsoft agreement is complex. We believe that the patent and technology agreements provide the companies with the framework to work collaboratively in the future to drive innovation for our customers."
As a result of the 10-year agreement signed on April 1, Microsoft is paying Sun $1.6 billion -- $900 million to resolve patent issues and $700 million to end pending antitrust problems -- in settlement and will maintain and update its support of the Java Virtual Machine in its desktops and servers. In addition, Sun and Microsoft have agreed to pay royalties for the use of each other's intellectual property, mostly involving Windows Server, Windows Client, the Sun Java System Identity Server, and JVMs. Microsoft will make an up-front payment of $350 million when the JVMs are updated in the next Windows XP patch. Sun will begin making royalty payments to Microsoft when it starts upgrading Windows-interoperable networking components in its Solaris server boxes.
For its part, Sun has agreed to license the Windows desktop system communication protocols -- which is interesting in light of all the time and money Sun has invested in the Java Desktop System -- and said it will work closely with Microsoft to improve the interoperability of the Java and .NET platforms. Cross-licensing agreements will be involved, and a Windows certification for Sun's new Xeon-based servers was also announced.
Groklaw has a cogent analysis of the Microsoft-Sun SEC 10K filing. OpenOffice.org has submitted to NewsForge a useful list of FAQs for general reference.
In a related story, Sun and Microsoft are planning to divulge details next month on progress to make their products interoperable. Mark McClain, vice president of software marketing at Sun, told analysts Monday in Burlington, Mass., that the announcement will focus on their work regarding interoperability in Web services and directory services. Both companies have repeatedly said that users have been demanding interoperability between Sun's Unix and Java environments and Microsoft's Windows and .Net for years.
Comments
on Sun denies report it is 'selling out' OpenOfficeNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
That's why we have to channelise more efforts in promoting KOffice and GNOME Office, which although not anywhere near perfect, are free viable alternatives to OO.o and MSO.
The idea is to keep the field full of different players... the moment we converge to one of them, the dinosaur that M$ has become, will pounce on it.
I always knew that OO.o with Sun written all over it was a bad deal in the long run.
The idea is to keep the field full of different players... the moment we converge to one of them, the dinosaur that M$ has become, will pounce on it.
I always knew that OO.o with Sun written all over it was a bad deal in the long run.
KOffice and GNOME Office are in *exactly* the same boat as OOo. Switching won't help. What we're saying here is that M$ reserves the right to take legal action against OOo just the same as it does with KOffice and GNOME Office or any other Office suite. Star Office however is safe. The bottom line is that which ever office suite turns out to be overly competitive with MSOffice is a likely target if M$ ever decide to go down the patent sue road.
Koffice doesn't look like or act like OpenOffice,but now shares the same file format, which provides a clean migration path for everyone's data, should we ever need to cross that bridge.
It is imperative that we keep a two-track approach to the Office suite. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is indeed dangerous. So I encourage all Free Software hackers and documentation writers to give the Koffice developers/commmunity a hand,so that we can have a good office suite that isn't related to Sun's Staroffice.
I mentioned before how Koffice doesn't look like Microsoft office because my guess is that Microsoft would use some sort of user-interface behavioral pattern to attack OO.org. Either that or the file protocol filters is what Microsoft will use as ammunition.
Here's to hoping that this doesn't come to pass.
It is imperative that we keep a two-track approach to the Office suite. Putting all of our eggs in one basket is indeed dangerous. So I encourage all Free Software hackers and documentation writers to give the Koffice developers/commmunity a hand,so that we can have a good office suite that isn't related to Sun's Staroffice.
I mentioned before how Koffice doesn't look like Microsoft office because my guess is that Microsoft would use some sort of user-interface behavioral pattern to attack OO.org. Either that or the file protocol filters is what Microsoft will use as ammunition.
Here's to hoping that this doesn't come to pass.
I dunno'. The more I evaluate the still "incoming news & views" on
this little tid-bit, the more my silly instincts tell me; This is a 3
Headed (or more) beast. For one; I can see it as a coy/snide little PR
stunt to cajole CTOs, CIOs & their ilk; "See! See what the GPL and
its carnage can do? Stick with MS/Star Office and stay out of the Line
of Fire!"
But is this what it all has come down to?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.."Bills PATENT portfolio
dictating our Future!" <??> tinfoilish; or no.
Still mulling over this, and waiting for the Da' Schwartz to open his
sewer on the matter. KDE/Gnome Office? Hmm.
This sounds just like Sun, leaving itself and it's commercial products being the best. Sure they contribute to OpenOffice, but if MS sues for any infringement against OpenOffice, I'll bet any thing Sun will say they had nothing to do with infringing code. In the end the agreement between Sun and Microsoft help Sun to hide behind the corporate shield. At the same time they are saying that Open Source and the GPL is dangerous. Patents are good and corporate contracts are the only protection and secure software to buy or use in the enterprise.
Think for a second. Since when do agreements between two companies cover third parties?
A no-sue agreement between MS and Sun can only cover stuff that Sun owns and controls. That doesn't include OpenOffice.org. You might as well complain that the agreement doesn't cover Gnome and Abiword.
Also, Sun is not saying that open source and the GPL are dangerous. MS has, but Sun hasn't. Sun has released 8 million lines of code under the LGPL.
Daniel Carrera
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
A no-sue agreement between MS and Sun can only cover stuff that Sun owns and controls. That doesn't include OpenOffice.org. You might as well complain that the agreement doesn't cover Gnome and Abiword.
Also, Sun is not saying that open source and the GPL are dangerous. MS has, but Sun hasn't. Sun has released 8 million lines of code under the LGPL.
Daniel Carrera
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
Looks like we are going to need another office package quick - Microscoff makes about half its income with MS-Office and they will gladly have Sun turn the screws tightly.
And MS-Sun will be glad to comply.
And MS-Sun will be glad to comply.
I think we should avoid panic over what might be nothing at all.
Let me start by saying I consider Sun as clueless as Apple. Both had enough resources to wipe M$ out more than once.
Instead, they snobbed "amateur" Linux until now, when they are being surpassed by it.
That said, we owe them a gigantic "thank you" for Openoffice.org. We cannot hope to be aided forever; some day, they'll do what AOL did with Mozilla.org.
We must be prepared to become independent.
Instead, they snobbed "amateur" Linux until now, when they are being surpassed by it.
That said, we owe them a gigantic "thank you" for Openoffice.org. We cannot hope to be aided forever; some day, they'll do what AOL did with Mozilla.org.
We must be prepared to become independent.
What on earth are you talking about?
In what way has Linux "surpassed" Apple?
They certainly haven't surpassed Linux in the number of quality applications available, usability of the GUI, or in the number of installed desktops, apart from wishful thinking on the part of some open source advocates.
So what have they surpassed Apple in?
Fragmented development?
GUI inconsistency and incompatibility?
Constantly changing ABI and Libraries?
It would be nice if before slagging off Apple, or Sun for that matter, you at least knew something about them.
I love Linux, but I have yet to see any area where it is categorically better than OS X. I still use it for servers, but I won't touch Linux as a desktop OS again until...
There is a popular desktop Linux with a proper release schedule that stays current for more than two weeks.
GNOME and KDE applications interoperate well and can have a consistent appearance and feel.
There are abstractions for binary drivers that allow them to work with more than one kernel version.
There is a civilised GUI config tool for most common config tasks.
I'll still keep using Linux and *BSD on servers though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
In what way has Linux "surpassed" Apple?
They certainly haven't surpassed Linux in the number of quality applications available, usability of the GUI, or in the number of installed desktops, apart from wishful thinking on the part of some open source advocates.
So what have they surpassed Apple in?
Fragmented development?
GUI inconsistency and incompatibility?
Constantly changing ABI and Libraries?
It would be nice if before slagging off Apple, or Sun for that matter, you at least knew something about them.
I love Linux, but I have yet to see any area where it is categorically better than OS X. I still use it for servers, but I won't touch Linux as a desktop OS again until...
There is a popular desktop Linux with a proper release schedule that stays current for more than two weeks.
GNOME and KDE applications interoperate well and can have a consistent appearance and feel.
There are abstractions for binary drivers that allow them to work with more than one kernel version.
There is a civilised GUI config tool for most common config tasks.
I'll still keep using Linux and *BSD on servers though.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
``In what way has Linux "surpassed" Apple?''
I believe the grandparent post was referring to Linux having surpassed Sun, not Apple. Even interpretting the 'Linux has surpassed' comment that way, I think that's still a bit of a stretch.
But I believe several sites has reported the Linux install base is actually larger than the Apple install base now.
Sorry, can't resiste.
>There is a popular desktop Linux with a proper release schedule that stays current for more than two weeks.
What do you mean by 'stays current'. If you mean 'has forseen future evolutions of the projects it includes and has versions due to be released in May in April', welcome to the real world. This is an open developpement model, so not everyone will be releasing on the same time frame, so you'll always have _something_ that somleone wants that won't be in the latest Mandrake or Suse, and speaking of those 2, how about their 6 month release cycle, is that proper enough for you?
>GNOME and KDE applications interoperate well and can have a consistent appearance and feel.
Personnally I haven't seen any problems like that for a year or 2, generally the big distros put in a lot of effort into makeing them work nicely together.
>There are abstractions for binary drivers that allow them to work with more than one kernel version.
Here you are dreaming, and before you go on, I'd like to ask you where your loveley abstraction model is in other OSs: Windows... not there, every version of the OS needs it's own drivers (except pehaps 98/Me) since each versions runns on a slightly different kernel. MacOS? Still no luck, that's why apple drivers come on the OSX CD, just like in Linux.
Sorry to flame, but it's just that most of these arguments just don't hold water anymore (or never did). Sure Linux still has a way to go before it could be used on every home desktop on the planet, but then again, I'm not sure that I wan't that to happen anyway, since then we'd have another (relative) monoculture which would make security more of a pain, and would penalise newcomers to the market.
>There is a popular desktop Linux with a proper release schedule that stays current for more than two weeks.
What do you mean by 'stays current'. If you mean 'has forseen future evolutions of the projects it includes and has versions due to be released in May in April', welcome to the real world. This is an open developpement model, so not everyone will be releasing on the same time frame, so you'll always have _something_ that somleone wants that won't be in the latest Mandrake or Suse, and speaking of those 2, how about their 6 month release cycle, is that proper enough for you?
>GNOME and KDE applications interoperate well and can have a consistent appearance and feel.
Personnally I haven't seen any problems like that for a year or 2, generally the big distros put in a lot of effort into makeing them work nicely together.
>There are abstractions for binary drivers that allow them to work with more than one kernel version.
Here you are dreaming, and before you go on, I'd like to ask you where your loveley abstraction model is in other OSs: Windows... not there, every version of the OS needs it's own drivers (except pehaps 98/Me) since each versions runns on a slightly different kernel. MacOS? Still no luck, that's why apple drivers come on the OSX CD, just like in Linux.
Sorry to flame, but it's just that most of these arguments just don't hold water anymore (or never did). Sure Linux still has a way to go before it could be used on every home desktop on the planet, but then again, I'm not sure that I wan't that to happen anyway, since then we'd have another (relative) monoculture which would make security more of a pain, and would penalise newcomers to the market.
You are right!
The only way to guarantee the future of OpenOffice.org is to get a large community of volunteers and various companies to run the project.
Are you willing to help? Send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). I would be happy to help you find a place where you can contribute.
You don't have to be a programmer to help. In a project as wide as OOo we have need for a large array of skill sets and interests.
I wrote a nice contributing page you might want to look at:
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html
I also maintain the OOoAuthors project (which is the "development site" for documentation).
http://www.oooauthors.org
I would love to show you around. The Authors project is a great place to work.
If you are concerned about the future of OOo, you can do something about it!
volunteer.
Tell your friends to volunteer.
The larger the non-Sun community, the less you'll have to worry about sun dropping support.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
The only way to guarantee the future of OpenOffice.org is to get a large community of volunteers and various companies to run the project.
Are you willing to help? Send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). I would be happy to help you find a place where you can contribute.
You don't have to be a programmer to help. In a project as wide as OOo we have need for a large array of skill sets and interests.
I wrote a nice contributing page you might want to look at:
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html
I also maintain the OOoAuthors project (which is the "development site" for documentation).
http://www.oooauthors.org
I would love to show you around. The Authors project is a great place to work.
If you are concerned about the future of OOo, you can do something about it!
volunteer.
Tell your friends to volunteer.
The larger the non-Sun community, the less you'll have to worry about sun dropping support.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
Most times, and there are few exceptions, when a company's "spokesperson" says something, it's meaningless. Notice that no Sun executives said anything.
Another name for a company spokesperson is a paid liar--a spinner.
Another name for a company spokesperson is a paid liar--a spinner.
What Sun negotiated seems very fair and reasonable to me, if I'm reading this correctly. They negotiated a concession concerning their product (StarOffice) - and Microsoft's lawyers probably insisted on clarifying language that the concession did not extend to OpenOffice.org, which Sun does not own or control.
Sun is a for-profit corporation, not a charitable foundation. Sometimes the interests of corporations can be aligned with those of FLOSS resulting in surprising alliances. However, as in most other alliances, the interests of the parties usually don't coincide completely, and one will occasionally do some things that the other finds regrettable or even infuriating. Sun was willing to donate a substantial, working code base to FLOSS but it still has its own interests in selling similar software. Why would customers buy something they could get for free? Many won't, but Sun is trying to add value with support, enterprise features, and indemnification. They aren't taking away anything from OpenOffice.org, they're just trying to make their offering more compelling to enterprise customers.
Some people want to have it both ways - Sun should continue to give OpenOffice everything new they come up with, and on the other hand they're busily dissing StarOffice - why buy something from an evil company that you can get for free from a great band of free software developers. Makes me nauseous.
[disclaimer - I don't have any connection to Sun or MS and never did, other than as an anonymous customer of some of their products]
Sun is a for-profit corporation, not a charitable foundation. Sometimes the interests of corporations can be aligned with those of FLOSS resulting in surprising alliances. However, as in most other alliances, the interests of the parties usually don't coincide completely, and one will occasionally do some things that the other finds regrettable or even infuriating. Sun was willing to donate a substantial, working code base to FLOSS but it still has its own interests in selling similar software. Why would customers buy something they could get for free? Many won't, but Sun is trying to add value with support, enterprise features, and indemnification. They aren't taking away anything from OpenOffice.org, they're just trying to make their offering more compelling to enterprise customers.
Some people want to have it both ways - Sun should continue to give OpenOffice everything new they come up with, and on the other hand they're busily dissing StarOffice - why buy something from an evil company that you can get for free from a great band of free software developers. Makes me nauseous.
[disclaimer - I don't have any connection to Sun or MS and never did, other than as an anonymous customer of some of their products]
Sun is a for-profit corporation, not a charitable foundation. Sometimes
the interests of corporations can be aligned with those of FLOSS
resulting in surprising alliances. However, as in most other alliances,
the interests of the parties usually don't coincide completely, and one
will occasionally do some things that the other finds regrettable or
even infuriating. Sun was willing to donate a substantial, working code
base to FLOSS */\ And in return got beaucoup functionality &
progressive "Free as in Free Beer" "ROI" slapping the F/LOSS
communities sweat & tears into its Star Office Suite*/\ [see
History of OpenOffice.org/] but it still has its own interests in
selling similar software.
Some people want to have it both ways - Sun should continue to give
OpenOffice everything new they come up with, */\ Again: see above
Who(m) gave what to Who(m)? */\ and on the other hand they're busily
dissing StarOffice - why buy something from an evil company that you
can get for free from a great band of free software developers. Makes
me nauseous.
They both have something the other wants bad; besides "posturing" now
that they have fair & aggresive competition coming from all sides.
x86 Linux/BSD, IBM, Suse/Novell, Red Hat & global collaboration by
some of the best & brightest.
(A fast setting) Sun needs the Money and to tie itself to a name the
Avg_Suit knows, loves & is familair with; MS. MS needs to keep its
Office market stilts High & Dry; and all the 64 bit OS wholesome
goodness it can wrangle. A "FUD whack" at the "frailities &
uncertainties" of F/LOSS in the process is just "more rounds coming
down range!"
Trademark violations and meaningless assurances
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 16, 2004 04:25 PMIn the world I inhabit, two parties cannot make binding promises on a third party without the third party's explicit consent.
<A HREF="http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/summary.html" title="openoffice.org">Logos, Trademark, and OpenOffice.org in a Nutshell</a openoffice.org> states quite clearly that there are trademark concerns with the name Open Office, ergo it is officially OpenOffice.org.
That has the effect of making this:
with respect solely to the product developed by Sun and generally known as Open Office,
meaningless, since the Open Office trademark isn't owned by either Sun Microsystems or Microsoft Corp, and furthermore has nothing to do with the software legally and cumbersomely known as OpenOffice.org.
Us in the cheap seats are going to have an entertaining few years ahead of us!
Sun has agreed to license the Windows desktop system communication protocols -- which is interesting in light of all the time and money Sun has invested in the Java Desktop System -- and said it will work closely with Microsoft to improve the interoperability of the Java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET platforms.
So, Sun is accepting and supporting Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols.
Is Microsoft accepting and supporting open file formats and protocols?
I highly doubt it!
End-user's need to be educated that moving away from proprietary file formats and protocols would be to their benefit.
People need to turn away from Microsoft's proprietary methods. We need to adopt open standards that will not aid any anti-competitive move.
I would personally love to see Microsoft's proprietary formats replaced with open formats - formats that are not created and patented by Microsoft. If Microsoft really can compete, let's see it put its money where its mouth is.
And how about a non-patentability agreement on file formats and protocols while we're about it?
So, Sun is accepting and supporting Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols.
Is Microsoft accepting and supporting open file formats and protocols?
I highly doubt it!
End-user's need to be educated that moving away from proprietary file formats and protocols would be to their benefit.
People need to turn away from Microsoft's proprietary methods. We need to adopt open standards that will not aid any anti-competitive move.
I would personally love to see Microsoft's proprietary formats replaced with open formats - formats that are not created and patented by Microsoft. If Microsoft really can compete, let's see it put its money where its mouth is.
And how about a non-patentability agreement on file formats and protocols while we're about it?
Re:Interoperability - MS's buzzword for 'lock-in'
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 17, 2004 02:37 PM
You are right.
Are you willing to help?
You don't have to be a programmer to contribute. We, at OpenOffice.org, are always looking for volunteers. In a project as wide as ours, there is room for everyone (artists, writers, marketing, etc).
From what you say, it looks like you may want to join the marketing team.
http://marketing.openoffice.org
If you need more ideas, take a look at the contribution page I wrote:
http://www.openoffice.org
If you want to help with documentation, I suggest the OOoAuthors project (which I maintain):
http://www.oooauthors.org
If none of this helps, send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). I would be happy to find a place where you can contribute.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
Are you willing to help?
You don't have to be a programmer to contribute. We, at OpenOffice.org, are always looking for volunteers. In a project as wide as ours, there is room for everyone (artists, writers, marketing, etc).
From what you say, it looks like you may want to join the marketing team.
http://marketing.openoffice.org
If you need more ideas, take a look at the contribution page I wrote:
http://www.openoffice.org
If you want to help with documentation, I suggest the OOoAuthors project (which I maintain):
http://www.oooauthors.org
If none of this helps, send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). I would be happy to find a place where you can contribute.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
European Community supports OpenOffice on Linux/wi
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 16, 2004 05:17 PM
This discusion is dangerous by itself -- it raises
concerns.
It is very important that European Commununity supports OpenOffice on Linux & Win as THE way of transition to FLOSS migration.
Sun should defend the openess & freedom of OpenOffice at any cost, because one contract is one thing, but the migration of planet to FLOSS more important project/effort.
Sun, remember IBM, Amiga ?
Be smart
concerns.
It is very important that European Commununity supports OpenOffice on Linux & Win as THE way of transition to FLOSS migration.
Sun should defend the openess & freedom of OpenOffice at any cost, because one contract is one thing, but the migration of planet to FLOSS more important project/effort.
Sun, remember IBM, Amiga ?
Be smart
Re:European Community supports OpenOffice on Linux
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 17, 2004 02:53 PM
The agreement doesn't say that Sun will not protect OpenOffice.org. It says that MS is not prohibited from suing OOo users.
This kind of agreement is reasonable. You can't expect a no-sue agreement to cover something that Sun doesn't control. MS would never agree to that. Nor would any company on earth. When two companies make a no-sue agreement, the agreement will never cover a third party. I'd think this is obvious.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
This kind of agreement is reasonable. You can't expect a no-sue agreement to cover something that Sun doesn't control. MS would never agree to that. Nor would any company on earth. When two companies make a no-sue agreement, the agreement will never cover a third party. I'd think this is obvious.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
The agreements between Microsoft and Sun strongly suggests that they are cooperating to provide a monopoly position on office software systems.
It would seem to me that the Open Office folks should officially offer/request a similar cross agreement with Microsoft and Sun.
I would not expect them to get a response.
However, in any future attempt at litigation against Open Office, there is immediate evidence available to the court of either/both Microsoft or Sun attmpting to gain control contrary to anti-trust legislation in USA, Europe etc.
They might also wish to refer the Microsoft/Sun agreement to the relevent anti-trust authorities - not that the Department of Injustice will want ot know!
It would seem to me that the Open Office folks should officially offer/request a similar cross agreement with Microsoft and Sun.
I would not expect them to get a response.
However, in any future attempt at litigation against Open Office, there is immediate evidence available to the court of either/both Microsoft or Sun attmpting to gain control contrary to anti-trust legislation in USA, Europe etc.
They might also wish to refer the Microsoft/Sun agreement to the relevent anti-trust authorities - not that the Department of Injustice will want ot know!
Sun doesn't control OpenOffice.org. How exactly do you suppose such an agreement is possible? You might as well complain that the agreement doesn't cover KOffice and Abiword either.
A Sun-MS agreement can only extend to the software that these entities actually control. That should be fairly obvious.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
A Sun-MS agreement can only extend to the software that these entities actually control. That should be fairly obvious.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
It is well known that Sun is a major steering force in the development of OpenOffice.org. It is also well known that StarOffice is entirely built from the source code of OpenOffice.org.
If Microsoft is willing to hold Sun immune from any patent threat for the same code that is used in Openoffice.org, it only shows that Microsoft's real concerns are not with any form of illusory patents, but with putting an end to the only viable open source office suite in existence.
Clearly, a judge could see how twisted this game is or one would hope so. I think the time to fork the OpenOffice.org code is fast approaching. I don't trust Sun and their daily change of heart to be an honest broker or member of the open source community.
OO.org people ought to put to Microsoft a request that they be held harmless just like Sun on the grounds that it is the same code. If Microsoft is unwilling, at least we would have it on record, that their decisions are arbitrarty.
If Microsoft is willing to hold Sun immune from any patent threat for the same code that is used in Openoffice.org, it only shows that Microsoft's real concerns are not with any form of illusory patents, but with putting an end to the only viable open source office suite in existence.
Clearly, a judge could see how twisted this game is or one would hope so. I think the time to fork the OpenOffice.org code is fast approaching. I don't trust Sun and their daily change of heart to be an honest broker or member of the open source community.
OO.org people ought to put to Microsoft a request that they be held harmless just like Sun on the grounds that it is the same code. If Microsoft is unwilling, at least we would have it on record, that their decisions are arbitrarty.
It is not strange that an MS-Sun agreement doen't cover a third projec that Sun doesn't control.
Having said that, if you feel that a fork may be appropriate, I strongly suggest that you join the project now. And encourage others to do so.
The stronger the non-Sun community is, the less you will have to worry about Sun's interests.
I would be happy to help you join the project. Send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). There a million things you could do for the project. No programming background? No problem!
OpenOffice.org is a huge project and we need people from all sorts of skill sets. We need artists, writers, speakers, etc.
I wrote a contribution page to help you get some ideas:
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html
I myself am involved in the OOoAuthors project, which writes documentation.
http://www.oooauthors.org
Please consider joining that project.
The OpenOffice.org community is very friendly, and very welcoming. It's the friendliest group I've had the pleasure of working with (and I've seen several).
Furthermore, as an active member of the OOo community, your voice will carry more weight than a post at Newsforge does. Like other open source projects, we are a meritocracy. People who do more, get more done, and get listened more.
If you have any interest in this, please don't hesitate to email me. I would love to introduce you to the project.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
Having said that, if you feel that a fork may be appropriate, I strongly suggest that you join the project now. And encourage others to do so.
The stronger the non-Sun community is, the less you will have to worry about Sun's interests.
I would be happy to help you join the project. Send me an email (dcarrera[at]openoffice[dot]org). There a million things you could do for the project. No programming background? No problem!
OpenOffice.org is a huge project and we need people from all sorts of skill sets. We need artists, writers, speakers, etc.
I wrote a contribution page to help you get some ideas:
http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html
I myself am involved in the OOoAuthors project, which writes documentation.
http://www.oooauthors.org
Please consider joining that project.
The OpenOffice.org community is very friendly, and very welcoming. It's the friendliest group I've had the pleasure of working with (and I've seen several).
Furthermore, as an active member of the OOo community, your voice will carry more weight than a post at Newsforge does. Like other open source projects, we are a meritocracy. People who do more, get more done, and get listened more.
If you have any interest in this, please don't hesitate to email me. I would love to introduce you to the project.
Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.
Does MS actually own any patents affecting OO.o?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 17, 2004 08:13 AM
My understanding is that MS owns only 27 patents that could possibly conflict with Open Source Software, and none of the patents have been reviewed. According to the US Patent Office, only 10% of all patents make it through the review process.
In this case, it's very probable that none of the 27 will make it through the review process, because most of the patents were taken out by MS without any actual basis in any of their own software -- basically MS has been taking out patents for IP already copyrighted by others.
Do any of the 27 patents affect OO.o? Currently, Open Source Software is in violation of zero reviewed patents.
In this case, it's very probable that none of the 27 will make it through the review process, because most of the patents were taken out by MS without any actual basis in any of their own software -- basically MS has been taking out patents for IP already copyrighted by others.
Do any of the 27 patents affect OO.o? Currently, Open Source Software is in violation of zero reviewed patents.
My understanding is that MS owns only 27 patents that could possibly conflict with Open Source Software,
where did you get this figure?
Re:Does MS actually own any patents affecting OO.o
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 18, 2004 04:56 AM
The figures were widely reported at the time that the articles on the company (OSRM) selling Linux patent insurance were discussed, since April of this year, I believe.
Since I know that users of any product can't be sued (not even if MS puts it in an agreement with Sun) for having a product that they legally obtained from a source that had nothing to do with the suer (or is that sewer? -- in this case MS), I didn't keep the articles.
Only developers and software manufacturers are at risk from this kind of lawsuit. So OpenOffice.org may have something to worry about, but users of OpenOffice.org do not -- no matter when they obtained the product.
However, the Linux insurance company reported that Linux was potentially in violation of 283 patents -- none of them reviewed and 27 of them owned by MS. It was also reported that Open Source Software was not in violation of any reviewed patents.
Try this link for one example of the numerous articles on the subject (also try Googling):
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39162<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 57,00.htm
Since I know that users of any product can't be sued (not even if MS puts it in an agreement with Sun) for having a product that they legally obtained from a source that had nothing to do with the suer (or is that sewer? -- in this case MS), I didn't keep the articles.
Only developers and software manufacturers are at risk from this kind of lawsuit. So OpenOffice.org may have something to worry about, but users of OpenOffice.org do not -- no matter when they obtained the product.
However, the Linux insurance company reported that Linux was potentially in violation of 283 patents -- none of them reviewed and 27 of them owned by MS. It was also reported that Open Source Software was not in violation of any reviewed patents.
Try this link for one example of the numerous articles on the subject (also try Googling):
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39162<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 57,00.htm
Just in case there actually is anyone who wasn't already pissed off about sun refusing to add features to openoffice.org where they thought said features would lead to lower sales of staroffice....
I can see their point of view, but I do hope a large number of openoffice.org developers get together and decide to fork sometime soon, or at least agree amongst themselves to put their efforts behind a single forked version if Microsoft ever moves to make the most of this part of the agreement.
I can see their point of view, but I do hope a large number of openoffice.org developers get together and decide to fork sometime soon, or at least agree amongst themselves to put their efforts behind a single forked version if Microsoft ever moves to make the most of this part of the agreement.
I hated this agreement from the start
These companies saw open source destroying them so now they are all protecting themselves for when they go bankrupt to sue the industry to a screeching halt.
while we are patenting software why don't we just patent all the math algorithms too - I think I am going to start and then start sueing everyone and then all our lives we will just be driving to to courthouse instead of our work place because the court house will be our work place.
I am sorry I need my cup of coffee but software patents are just stupid.
These companies saw open source destroying them so now they are all protecting themselves for when they go bankrupt to sue the industry to a screeching halt.
while we are patenting software why don't we just patent all the math algorithms too - I think I am going to start and then start sueing everyone and then all our lives we will just be driving to to courthouse instead of our work place because the court house will be our work place.
I am sorry I need my cup of coffee but software patents are just stupid.
18th September 2004. By the letter of the Law anyone installing OpenOffice after the agreement was entered into is now a criminal.
If you go to the OpenOffice.org and download and install oOo1.1.2 then you as the end user can be sued by Microsoft, I suspect that you would be encouraged to PAY for StarOffice or Microsoft Office, at which time all will be forgiven.
No individual or company has the right to enter into an agreement or contract that makes third parties into criminals.
Buy continueing to distribute oOo1.1.2 or any future release under the guise of FREEWARE when there is an established agreement that makes installation of that software an illegal act breaks national and international laws.
Its too late for SUN and Microsoft as they are clearly guilty.
The management & shareholders of SUN & MICROSOFT
should be arrested and jailed.
WHO WILL DO THIS, our governments MUST protect the public from this type of fraudulant activity.
There are ELECTIONS happening in most major economies NOW and in the very near future, we all need to pressure the political party's to protect us all.
-Goto their offices and tell them how you feel
personally, face to face if possible.
-Write to them as well, get your friends &
family to help.
-Write to you local newspapers, PC mags etc.
-Call talk-back radio & TV ( maybe G4TechTV !)
SPREAD THE WORD - STOP THE ROT
"if we bend over and cop it now, your screwed in the future" MM
If you go to the OpenOffice.org and download and install oOo1.1.2 then you as the end user can be sued by Microsoft, I suspect that you would be encouraged to PAY for StarOffice or Microsoft Office, at which time all will be forgiven.
No individual or company has the right to enter into an agreement or contract that makes third parties into criminals.
Buy continueing to distribute oOo1.1.2 or any future release under the guise of FREEWARE when there is an established agreement that makes installation of that software an illegal act breaks national and international laws.
Its too late for SUN and Microsoft as they are clearly guilty.
The management & shareholders of SUN & MICROSOFT
should be arrested and jailed.
WHO WILL DO THIS, our governments MUST protect the public from this type of fraudulant activity.
There are ELECTIONS happening in most major economies NOW and in the very near future, we all need to pressure the political party's to protect us all.
-Goto their offices and tell them how you feel
personally, face to face if possible.
-Write to them as well, get your friends &
family to help.
-Write to you local newspapers, PC mags etc.
-Call talk-back radio & TV ( maybe G4TechTV !)
SPREAD THE WORD - STOP THE ROT
"if we bend over and cop it now, your screwed in the future" MM
Any contract between Sun and MS is not binding on anyone except Sun and MS. People cannot be sued for using OO.o because OO.o is not a signer on the contract. The only way a user can be sued is if they got their copy of OO.o from MS or Sun. Why would anyone do that(!!!)?
Get the truth, not some lame PR or intern propaganda @
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/viewtopic.php?t=56
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/viewtopic.php?t=56
LinuxElectrons is using FUD to increase visitors
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on September 20, 2004 05:44 AM
The title of the LinuxElectrons story is false and FUD. Sun and Microsoft cannot affect entities they don't own and who are not parties to their agreement. Sun cannot provide legal aid against OpenOffice.org users because it has no information about them and because it has no relationship to them. Sun can only provide information about Star Office users.
It looks as though M$ paid LinuxElectrons to "release" the information as just another ploy in MS's ever-lengthening list of ploys to frighten users away from OpenOffice.org and Star Office to help MS save its floundering MSOffice.
Only Sun and Star Office are really affected by this -- and if you will notice, MS had to pay through the nose to Sun in the settlement. I'm sure MS would love to see Sun shunned.
In the LinuxElectrons comments, the author of the article (and web site owner) mainly rebuts the NewsForge and Groklaw articles by claiming they are both in Sun's pockets. That, even if true (and there is no reason to think so), is irrelevant. Contract law prevails in this case, and contracts do not bind nonsigners.
In addition end users cannot be sued when they have legally acquired products that are later determined to be infringing on patents or copyrights.
According to the FTC, for a company to go after an end user (as SCO threatened to do with Linux users) is considered criminal harassment and charges can be brought against an entity for doing that. The only recourse of a patent- or copyright-holder is to go after the manufacturer(s) and distributor(s) of the infringing product.
If the patent- or copyright-holder legally prevails, they are then awarded damages based on the number of units produced by the manufacturer and distributed by the distributor -- the end user is not at risk and pays nothing.
There is nothing to indicate that MS even holds any patents affecting OO.o, or that if it does, it will retain them if they are challenged in a patent review.
The LinuxElectrons article is intended to engender FUD. Even the author cannot defend it by saying anything relevant to the legal issues in the threaded comments.
It looks as though M$ paid LinuxElectrons to "release" the information as just another ploy in MS's ever-lengthening list of ploys to frighten users away from OpenOffice.org and Star Office to help MS save its floundering MSOffice.
Only Sun and Star Office are really affected by this -- and if you will notice, MS had to pay through the nose to Sun in the settlement. I'm sure MS would love to see Sun shunned.
In the LinuxElectrons comments, the author of the article (and web site owner) mainly rebuts the NewsForge and Groklaw articles by claiming they are both in Sun's pockets. That, even if true (and there is no reason to think so), is irrelevant. Contract law prevails in this case, and contracts do not bind nonsigners.
In addition end users cannot be sued when they have legally acquired products that are later determined to be infringing on patents or copyrights.
According to the FTC, for a company to go after an end user (as SCO threatened to do with Linux users) is considered criminal harassment and charges can be brought against an entity for doing that. The only recourse of a patent- or copyright-holder is to go after the manufacturer(s) and distributor(s) of the infringing product.
If the patent- or copyright-holder legally prevails, they are then awarded damages based on the number of units produced by the manufacturer and distributed by the distributor -- the end user is not at risk and pays nothing.
There is nothing to indicate that MS even holds any patents affecting OO.o, or that if it does, it will retain them if they are challenged in a patent review.
The LinuxElectrons article is intended to engender FUD. Even the author cannot defend it by saying anything relevant to the legal issues in the threaded comments.
I think I know all I need to know about LinuxElectrons. On the Linux Today site, I noticed a comment that credible comments contrary to the LinuxElectrons' article were being censored.
I tried to post a comment on LinuxElectrons suggesting that end users worried about being sued should contact the FTC and be reassured that end users cannot be sued for using any software they legally acquired regardless of if that software is later found to infringe a copyright or patent. That comment was deleted and the IP address I posted it from was banned so I couldn't repost it (!!!).
Obviously, LinuxElectrons is not interested in the truth or even in a serious discussion. There is something very wrong with those people (the author of the article is the web site owner) -- I doubt that it's a genuine Linux site, most probably it's a just another front for MS.
The people who think the article was meant to cause FUD are right.
I tried to post a comment on LinuxElectrons suggesting that end users worried about being sued should contact the FTC and be reassured that end users cannot be sued for using any software they legally acquired regardless of if that software is later found to infringe a copyright or patent. That comment was deleted and the IP address I posted it from was banned so I couldn't repost it (!!!).
Obviously, LinuxElectrons is not interested in the truth or even in a serious discussion. There is something very wrong with those people (the author of the article is the web site owner) -- I doubt that it's a genuine Linux site, most probably it's a just another front for MS.
The people who think the article was meant to cause FUD are right.
I don't doubt that this linuxelectrons might be sowing FUD - I hope that the community can respond by clarifying and making their case for OOo stronger. Questions by the users/community/opposition, answered intelligently, will hopefully serve to strengthen the case for OOo.
With this in mind here is an extract of an email to the OpenOffice.org people - I hoped if nothing else to question the wisdom of using the term "StarBasic" in case Sun has control of this term. I am still awaiting a response.
+++start of email extract+++
Hi Jacqueline,
I am a fan of OpenOffice but, as with all open source advocates, I keep an eye
on licencing and possible future difficulties before investing more time in products
and skills. I read a few headlines and followed a few links and this one in
particular seemed one that you might like to read (if not already):
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php?story=2<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 040914141417417
I posted this query which I think would really be a valuable addition to the FAQ
on the openoffice.org website. Could you or anyone else at OOo provide a
response to my query?
==start of posted comment==
The question I have is over the copyright of the file format and the macro
language which is worryingly referred to as StarBasic even on OOo home page.
Can Sun at a later date prevent the file format from being used in OOo if it
goes cool on the whole project or is it entirely free (http://www.fsf.org)
Does sun own the copyright of the term "StarBasic"? Again can it prevent usage
in OOo if it goes cool on the OOo idea?
==end of posted comment==
+++end of email extract+++
I try to read newsforge each week and prefer it to theregister whose opinions seem a little influenced by who is giving them the most advertising revenue.
With this in mind here is an extract of an email to the OpenOffice.org people - I hoped if nothing else to question the wisdom of using the term "StarBasic" in case Sun has control of this term. I am still awaiting a response.
+++start of email extract+++
Hi Jacqueline,
I am a fan of OpenOffice but, as with all open source advocates, I keep an eye
on licencing and possible future difficulties before investing more time in products
and skills. I read a few headlines and followed a few links and this one in
particular seemed one that you might like to read (if not already):
http://www.linuxelectrons.com/article.php?story=2<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 040914141417417
I posted this query which I think would really be a valuable addition to the FAQ
on the openoffice.org website. Could you or anyone else at OOo provide a
response to my query?
==start of posted comment==
The question I have is over the copyright of the file format and the macro
language which is worryingly referred to as StarBasic even on OOo home page.
Can Sun at a later date prevent the file format from being used in OOo if it
goes cool on the whole project or is it entirely free (http://www.fsf.org)
Does sun own the copyright of the term "StarBasic"? Again can it prevent usage
in OOo if it goes cool on the OOo idea?
==end of posted comment==
+++end of email extract+++
I try to read newsforge each week and prefer it to theregister whose opinions seem a little influenced by who is giving them the most advertising revenue.
Like you, I would be interested to know just what copyrights or patents might potentially be at issue. However, I am not very concerned.
Although Star Basic may have been developed by Sun (and depending on which history you read, it's not clear that Sun came up with this first -- according to some, OO.o developers are allowing Sun to use OO.o code), there is no reason to assume that the underlying code infringes on anything at all. There are usually several ways to reach the same formats, and it is the formats that allow for compatibility.
That said, there is no reason to believe that Star Basic's code (regardless of who developed it and who is licensing it) infringes on any Microsoft code. Remember, the entire Wine project has reproduced MS Windows up to and including XP with completely original code. No copyright infringements, no use of MS patents.
I suspect this is really a nonissue altogether.
Although Star Basic may have been developed by Sun (and depending on which history you read, it's not clear that Sun came up with this first -- according to some, OO.o developers are allowing Sun to use OO.o code), there is no reason to assume that the underlying code infringes on anything at all. There are usually several ways to reach the same formats, and it is the formats that allow for compatibility.
That said, there is no reason to believe that Star Basic's code (regardless of who developed it and who is licensing it) infringes on any Microsoft code. Remember, the entire Wine project has reproduced MS Windows up to and including XP with completely original code. No copyright infringements, no use of MS patents.
I suspect this is really a nonissue altogether.
This is public relations spin
Posted by: Sydney Weidman on September 16, 2004 06:41 AMIt is easy for Sun to say "We strongly support the OpenOffice.org community". There are no legal obligations attached to "strongly support".
This is where the future gets really ugly. This is not going to just dry up and go away like SCO. Microsoft would love to crush Free Software, and this will give them the tools to do it. Even though the community will rebuild itself, a huge opportunity will have been lost forever.
Software patents need to be invalidated en masse. They do nothing but provide existing vendors with ammunition to crush competition and stifle innovation.
#