Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook XML to Word(ML)?

[Steve Ball <Steve.Ball@explain.com.au>]

Well, I'm no lawyer[1] (thank goodness!) so I can't give any kind of  
definitive answer...

Last time I looked, Microsoft were offering a royalty-free license to  
use their XML-based formats as long as you acknowledged that their  
patents were valid.  I'm not sure whether their patent applications  
have actually been approved by the US Patent Office[*] and I'm even  
less sure whether the patents would actually be defensible.   
Personally, I don't believe the patent holds water, but see [1].

Now, most of these stylesheets are being developed in Australia, not  
the US, so it is Australian patents that should be relevant.   
However, the recent Free Trade Agreement (FTA) probably negates that  
issue: AFAIK (again, see [1]) IP now applies equally in the US and Oz  
(see also debate concerning pharmaceuticals before the FTA was signed).

Will there be unpleasant side-effects?  Probably once somebody starts  
to make significant amounts of money from this stuff without  
Microsoft getting a cut...

[Normally I sign off my messages with "Cheers", but I don't feel too  
cheery on this issue ;-) ]
Steve Ball

* The USPTO seems to approve all kinds of dubious software patents so  
I would expect that if it hasn't already been approved then it soon  
will be :-(

On 16/08/2005, at 7:44 AM, John L. Clark wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 07:24:16AM +1000, Steve Ball wrote:
>
>> Further to Bob's reply, the plan is to support all DocBook elements
>> (though not necessarily all *combinations* of elements) for the
>> entire round-tripping process.  At this stage I'm ramping up the
>> effort I'm putting into the project, and would welcome feedback on
>> the priorities people would place on the elements to be supported.
>>
>
> Very cool; I'm looking forward to this effort (and would be willing to
> contribute if there were a need for an XSLT-tinkering dochead).  What
> I've been wondering, though, is what "rights" normal users have to
> instances of various Microsoft XML output formats.  I don't think I  
> ever
> heard the last word on that, and I've been curious.  Clearly Tim  
> Bray's
> "View Source effect"[0] wants to kick in hard with respect to
> newly-transparent MS-stuffs, but I've been wondering whether  
> unpleasant
> things lurk in the shadows further down this path.  What's the good  
> word
> on using MS schemata for developing transforms and the like?
>
> Peace,
>
>     John L. Clark
>