OpenDocument: cleared for use? [LWN.net]

The press release from the Software Freedom Law Center came with an attention-getting headline: Software Freedom Law Center Clears OpenDocument Format for Free Software Use. Since a number of free software projects have supported OpenDocument for some years now, and since OpenDocument has been heavily promoted as a way of leveling the office suite playing field, many in the community may have been surprised to see SFLC jumping in to "clear" the format at this time. Still, free software developers will be glad to know that "...that they can legally implement OpenDocument Format (ODF) in free and open source software. OpenDocument Format is a free file format for saving and exchanging editable documents, spreadsheets, databases and presentations."

The problem is that the legal opinion from SFLC says no such thing. With all legal texts, one is well advised to read the fine print; in this case, the small text makes it clear that SFLC's survey was of a rather more limited scope than the press release would suggest.

The SFLC analysis was seemingly inspired by concern over the patent policies of OASIS, the standards body which has adopted ODF. OASIS standards can include patented technology; depending on the policy chosen when a given standard process starts, those patents need not be made available under any sort of license compatible with free software. In the case of ODF, however, the standard was developed in the "royalty free on limited terms" mode. Whether the standard is truly free, in the end, depends on whether the "limited terms" are workable or not.

So the SFLC went to look at the patent terms disclosures required of the standard committee's members. Only Sun had filed such a disclosure, and Sun's terms were deemed to be reasonable. From this work, SFLC concluded that none of the OASIS standard committee members have any patents which they will be able to assert against those who implement OpenDocument. None of the companies which put together this standard have any submarine patents lurking below the surface.

This is good to know, but the disclaimer text makes it clear just how limited this statement is:

Patent-holders not qualifying as Obligated Members of the OASIS Technical Committee may in future assert essential claims. Obligated Members could in future assert non-essential claims... Programs with additional functionality beyond the implementation of the ODF standard, including programs with office suite functionality, may in fact practice licensed essential claims outside the field of use restriction of one or more licenses... This opinion expresses no view of the validity of any patent, nor whether any patent is infringed by ODF or by any implementation thereof. No patent search has been conducted in connection with the preparation of this opinion.

So SFLC did not actually go looking for possibly relevant patents. Given the current state of affairs, the existence of patents which could possibly applied to ODF seems almost certain. Searching them out would have been pointless; in this field, it is often simply better not to know about possible patent problems. So, while the SFLC has done a good thing by ruling out one particular set of potential ODF patent problems, there are limits to the extent to which ODF can be "cleared for free software use." As long as the current patent regime exists, free software will never be truly safe.

(Log in to post comments)