Links

Ben Laurie blathering


Am I Reassured?

Mike Jones (of Microsoft) tells me I was wrong to be worried about Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise. I wasn’t actually that worried, but now I am.

He says

The “analysis” tries to insinuate that since Microsoft doesn’t promise that future revisions of specifications covered by the Open Specification Promise will be automatically covered unless Microsoft is involved in developing them, that it’s not safe to rely on the OSP for current versions either. This is of course false, as the OSP is an irrevocable promise that Microsoft will never sue anyone for using any of the covered specifications (unless they sue Microsoft for using the same specification, which is a normal exception in all such non-assertion covenants).

Clearly the point is not that current specifications might stop being covered. The problem is that if future versions of the specs are not covered then it will become irrelevant that current ones are – there’s no point in implementing a standard that no-one uses anymore. And given Microsoft’s track record in the area of extending specifications until no-one can implement them, this seems like a very real risk.

He then points to a response in the context of OOXML that is supposed to further reassure. But it does the opposite

This section points out that the OSP only applies to listed versions of covered specifications. True, except that we have already committed to extending it to ISO/IEC DIS 29500 when it is approved in our filing with ISO/IEC. For ODF, IBM in their ISP takes the identical approach. Strange how things that seem appropriate for ODF are not appropriate for Open XML.

In other words, Microsoft can do exactly what I am concerned about, except that in the case of OOXML (which I really don’t care about) they’ve promised not to. Nice for word processors, perhaps. Not so nice for security people, who are covered by no such promise.

OSP covers specifications not code

Not true. The OSP is a promise to not assert patents that are necessarily infringed by implementations of covered specifications. Like all similar patent non-asserts (including the Sun and IBM versions for ODF) the promise covers that part of a product that implements that specification (and not other parts that have nothing to do with the specification). While the Sun covenant is silent about conformance to the specification, the OSP allows implementers the freedom to implement any (or all) parts of a covered specification and to the extent they do implement those portions (also known as conform to those parts) they are covered by the promise for those parts. Contrast that to the IBM pledge that requires total conformance and so programming errors or absence of something required by the spec (but not by an implementer’s product) means that the promise is totally void for that product.

I just don’t get this. It starts with “not true” but then goes on to confirm that it is true! That is, the code is only usable insofar as it is used to implement a covered specification. Programming errors would void their promise just like it does IBM’s. And similarly, re-use of the code for a different purpose would also not be covered. In other words, the specification is covered, not the code.

If Microsoft can’t coherently defend themselves against this analysis but still want us to believe it is incorrect, that seems cause for concern, don’t you think?

2 Comments

  1. “I just don’t get this. It starts with “not true” but then goes on to confirm that it is true!”
    – Quite. Orwell called it doublespeak, iirc. Weird, innit?

    Comment by Mick — 21 Mar 2008 @ 14:28

  2. […] 24, 2008 · No Comments Ben Laurie has issues with the Microsoft purchase of Crenditica that deal, ironically enough, with trust. Specifically […]

    Pingback by Who do you trust and why? « Identity Blogger — 24 Mar 2008 @ 12:34

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress