Microsoft Agrees to License Windows Source Code

msbmsb writes "Stepping away from previous tradition, "Microsoft Corp. said Wednesday it will license its Windows source code to comply with a European Union antitrust ruling." But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS, developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code. This is an addition to the "12,000 pages of technical documents and 500 hours of free technical support" to those who purchase a license."

12000 Pages?

[unheard02 (949368)]

Man, and all we get is clippy to help us out.

Re:12000 Pages?

[GoodOmens (904827)]

Bets on when it will be leaked?

Re:And it will LEAK 24 hours later!

[Aranel Alasse (880862)]

Shouldn't we hope that it doesn't leak? I don't really know much about it, but I'd imagine that Microsoft has patents and such all over their stuff. If it gets out, and similar looking code appears elsewhere (i.e. in open source code projects), couldn't there be lawsuits and accusations flying everywhere?

Re:And it will LEAK 24 hours later!

[GoodOmens (904827)]

Yes but being illegal if its leaked doesn't stop you from downloading Microsoft Office or Windows off your favorite P2P network / torrent site / usenet ....

However this does bring up a more legite question: "Will Apple have to do the same?" or since darwin is already open source does it matter?

How much?

[Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373)]

But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS, developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code.

One Cajillion Dollars

Re:How much?

[Orion Blastar (457579)]

You forgot, Steve Ballmer dressed up as Dr. Evil, putting his pinky to his lips:

"We shall license the Windows source code, for, ....... One Cajillion Dollars! Muahahaahahahahahahahahaah!"

Re:How much?

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

The question is, who would try to clone such an impossible to understand and bad developed SO [sic]???

These guys [reactos.org] would.

Ok....

[Tragek (772040)]

I'll admit it, I'm shocked. However, I have to ask the question? What is this going to change?

Is this the beginning or end of windows?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Once this hits pirate land, are we in for more trouble than good?

Should help Security

[WebHostingGuy (825421)]

With the actual source and another pair of eyes looking at it, there should be more security fixes and hopefully a more secure OS.

Re:Should help Security

[dotgain (630123)]

Yeah, I can see it now. People flocking en masse to fix the holes, and pay for the privilege!

Re:Should help Security

[hackstraw (262471)]

With the actual source and another pair of eyes looking at it, there should be more security fixes and hopefully a more secure OS.

Iff they accept patches. I don't know if their build and release system can handle such a thing right now, this is entirely a different model for them if they adopt it.

Why is it that about 80% of the Microsoft headlines are basically a recital of the Henry Spencer quote -- "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly."

If MS is to license their source (but n

Will it compile?

[ptaff (165113)]

The question is will it be complete and compile? Don't they have to hide parts of Windows that are licensed from other companies?

Windows will still be distributed as binaries, having this source code does not give any guarantee about what's really running on your system.

Unspecified amount?

[jpsowin (325530)]

developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code

That means it's either free, or will cost trillions of dollars. I vote for the latter.

DEVELOPER: I'd like to purchase your code, please.
MS: Sure, no problem! Sign here.
DEV: Wait, how much is this again?
MS: It's an unspecified amount.
DEV: Oh, okay, that's right. Here is my signature. My company will foot the bill.
MS: We will send the bill soon--it will take a few weeks to finish printing. Very good doing business with you, sir. You are an intelligent man. We are a small company.

Nothing new

[truthsearch (249536)]

In the US Microsoft already offers their code to governments, schools, and some limited corporations. All sign NDAs of course. The only news is that it's now happening in Europe. So don't be all surprised people outside MS are seeing the code. This isn't anything new.

Are you sure?

[bmajik (96670)]

My understanding is that previous disclosures of Windows Source typically had "no develop" and "no commercial spinoff" clauses. I.e. you couldn't necessarily use the Windows source to try and make your pay-ware version of $whatever work better.

I think this changes that. Now software companies working on plugsin/whatever for windows will be able to continue working on those things, even after looking at the windows code.

That is a pretty significant change, I think. Previous source offerings were primarily

Already been done (sort of)

[stikves (127823)]

Actually, Microsoft is already licensing the Windows source code. However the significance of the new event is, they will not be choosing the licensor (at least not as much as before).

For a list of microsoft shared source licencing programs look at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/Li censing/default.mspx [microsoft.com]. You'll see that the top item [microsoft.com] mentions "access to Microsoft Windows® source code for internal development and support purpose". And as far as I know there are already many utility producers (Symantec, WinInternals, etc) that can access NTFS source codes.

Anyways do not keep your hopes too high. As you can see there are many shared source licenses (some are even like BSD), however Windows is not becoming "Open Source" soon.

Another great move by Microsoft

[by Anonymous Coward]

Nicely played by Microsoft.

As usual - they're not giving what anyone asks for (afaik - noone actually wants to have to look at the internals of windows), they just want to get the documentation on the protocols used so that they can intercommunicate.

By offering to license Windows, Micrsofts "crown jewels", MS has done two nice things (for them).
1) They appear to be bending over backwards to meeting the EUs demands; and
2) They will manage to set any number of unreasonable licensing terms (both monetary and otherwise), to turn this into yet another profit center (and ensure that open-source can't use any of it...)

Imo, the EU should tell them that this is *not* what was asked for, and while it's nice and whatever, please just provide what you were asked for.
Otherwise please pass go, please pay $2million dollars.

Consequences

[doublegauss (223543)]

This will have no consequences whatsoever on piracy. Those people don't give a toss about source code, all they need is to copy the executables.

This will have consequences on projects like Wine, Samba or ReactOS because some legal mechanism will be in force so that you can't look at the Windows source and rewrite it, let alone cut-n-paste it. What those guys need to do is ensuring any development is clean-room. What I see as conceivable is that someone (the FSF for instance) pays for one licence and the devotes some effort into releasing documents which describe accurately the internals in plain language. Obviously, the people who do this job must not contribute any code to any project.

Re:Consequences

[js3 (319268)]

yea but once you have access to the source, they can come after you for copying their implementation. As a developer I find this push to release the windows source sort of strange. We need proper documentation not source code, if something is broken we can point to the manual and have it corrected, instead of following the broken implementation in the source only to find it "fixed" in another version of the os and breaking compatibility.

Wahoo!

[Billly Gates (198444)]

Now I can learn how to create secure bugfree code from the masters.

Uh... right... so where's that documentation?

[Lifewish (724999)]

So MS get ordered to hand over documentation for their protocols. They do so. It's crap and they're ordered to go back and do it properly.

So they respond with "figure it out yourself. After paying us some cash obviously."

Does anyone actually think this is an acceptable response?

sweet

[Tachikoma (878191)]

i hope it gets leaked on the web.
that way i can cut-and-paste it into a Obfuscated code [wikipedia.org] contest!

So, anybody read the article? Raise your hands now

[anzev (894391)]

Well, the artcile cleary states:

Microsoft is to open up the source code behind its server communication protocols, in an attempt to get the European Commission off its back.
I'm pretty sure this isn't Windows... actually, being a developer myself I KNOW this is not the Windows source code. It's just source code to the protocols. It's a great step forward no less, but anyway.

There will be no additional charge for access to the code.

Er... and the article summary states that developers will have to pay an unspecified amount of money... Ok...

RTFA! That's all I have to say. It's a really short article you know.

What's needed is protocol specifications, not code

[Big Jojo (50231)]

This is an end-run around the requirement to provide complete and accurate protocol documentation, for the purposes of third party inter-operation.

Notice how any third party that uses that code in lieu of the protocol documentation is now unable to inter-operate without forking money over to Microsoft ... sleazy.

Of course, many of us have long suspected that Microsoft really doesn't understand software engineering disciplines well enough to make their products adhere to such specifications. They may think "here's the code" is the best they can do without actually revising their development practices. Well, tough noogies, this is just the price for their previous abusive practices.

Stop cloning or emulation?

[beforewisdom (729725)]

I think the implicitly stiff fee is to slow down OSS developers from discovering the undocumented hooks in windows so they can make better windwos emulations.

Doesn't mean anything

[argent (18001)]

EXISTING customers who are ALREADY paying for documentation on the Windows server networking protocols will now be allowed to see the source code to the protocols for no additional charge.

They won't be able to modify, extend, or redistribute the code, even in closed applications.

This is only by the most liberal interpretation "opening" the code, and it's really not licensing the code except as reference material.

Continued Support Opportunity

[SteveX (5640)]

This creates a huge opportunity for companies to take over supporting legacy operating systems.

License the Windows XP code today, wait a few years for Microsoft to stop supporting it, and then sell support contracts to companies that have chosen not to upgrade and still need security patches and bug fixes.

Codeweavers/Cedega/WINE

[fufinache (787019)]

If I had the money and the knowledge to set up one of those internet money pools, I would try to pool together some money so that Codeweavers, or maybe even Cedega can get a copy of the code. I'm sure a this could go a long way to help linux acceptance.

Interoperability shouldn't need the source code

[Rob Y. (110975)]

The whole point of the EU's interoperability requirement was so that people could build compatible systems. Nobody want's to clone Windows (or at least that isn't an EU requirement). And just because somebody wants to be able to serve files to Windows desktops doesn't mean that they want to steal Microsoft's intellectual property. They just want to be able to support 90+ % of the systems out there. And maybe if MS hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't be forced to allow that. But they did.

Offering the source code with draconian licensing terms doesn't do it. They just need to release detailed specs for the bits of Windows that are required to interoperate with the system. That means the filesystem layout, networking protocols, and I'd argue, codecs that are 'built in' to windows enough that website dev's use them as 'always available' facilities.

And the specs should be made available for free. No restrictions on use. That's the whole point. If MS has the ability through its monopoly position to set de-facto standards, they should not be able to use those standards to further entrench their monopoly. A requirement to publish the specs would remove that incentive.

This offering is a big old red herring, and the EU should reject it.

What if someone uses it to make a better Windows?

[Orion Blastar (457579)]

What if the Windows clone has fewer bugs, fewer security flaws, runs faster, and is a better quality than Microsoft Windows and sells for a lower price? Can they sell it outside of Europe then?

Not sure of that...

[meringuoid (568297)]

If they publish XP but not Vista the usefulness will be limited.

Ever been annoyed at having to keep a FAT32 neutral-zone on your dual boot system because nobody's yet worked out how to write to NTFS without wrecking everything?

That's the kind of thing this will hopefully lead to. It's all about interoperability. Unfortunately, knowing MS, the terms and conditions will be fricking deadly, and no open-source coder will so much as look at MS code for fear of contaminating themselves legally, so we shouldn't get too optimistic...

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[NeedleSurfer (768029)]

Because they are abusing a monoppoly, even simpler because they have a monopoly. Because this monopoly is gained and maintained trough the code they created, don't abuse of your monopoly and drastic measures won't have to be taken.

Really?

[OwlWhacker (758974)]

No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it.

But most of the time nobody can use any alternatives because Microsoft uses proprietary file formats, protocols and APIS. Microsoft locks people into Windows via these proprietary methods, the competition cannot freely integrate with many Microsoft solutions.

That's why the E.U. wants Microsoft to provide data on its protocols: so that other companies can get their products to work with M

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

No one is forced to use Microsoft software.

Wrong, Microsoft strong-armed OEMs into bundling only Windows throughout the 90s, levying special little fines if they dared offer competing products. So technically superior alternatives like OS/2 and BeOS weren't given a fair chance, and consumers never got to try them out.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[MarkByers (770551)]

They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere.

More likely though, they will lobby to change the laws because they don't want to lose one of their biggest markets.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Pope (17780)]

When one of those game developers is a 95% monopoly on home and office computers and their software comes pre-installed on all hardware with cost-prohibitive terms to the hardware manufacturers against installing a competitor's game software, then we'll have a look at the merits of a case against that game developer.

Re:What a[n actual] bunch of crap...

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

You can do that now because of the anti-trust trial, but it doesn't matter because 10 years ago, Microsoft made sure you couldn't do that. This created a monopoly, and all the applications became dependent on the Windows platform, which made the monopoly huge, and competing offerings irrelevant. In other words, you can do that now because competitors are so irrelevant in the face of the monopoly, which was made so huge by preventing those competitors from competing in the first place.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Guppy06 (410832)]

"Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?"

Why should any murderer be forced to spend time in prison?

Answer: because they were convicted in a court of law (or, in Microsoft's case, courts) of comitting a crime and are now being punished.

"Is Blizzard going to be forced to reveal their source code so that we can write a better version of Gear?"

Hold off your whining until Blizzard is prosecuted for abusing monopoly powers.

The original EU decision from march 2004

[fritsd (924429)]

I'm sorry, but I see a lot of nonsense in this discussion thread :-) as if nobody remembers what this is all about, so here it is: Here is the summary of the EC's punishments/remedies decision, from march *2004*: http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN &guiLanguage=en [eu.int] (note where it says Microsoft should comply within 120 days) and this is a quote about whether source code should be disclosed:
"

* As regards interoperability, Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market. The disclosed information will have to be updated each time Microsoft brings to the market new versions of its relevant products.
To the extent that any of this interface information might be protected by intellectual property in the European Economic Area(6), Microsoft would be entitled to reasonable remuneration. The disclosure order concerns the interface documentation only, and not the Windows source code, as this is not necessary to achieve the development of interoperable products.

"
So, this is not about Microsoft's precious source code or trade secrets *AT ALL*. It is all about interface documentation to ensure interoperability in a heterogeneous computer network (i.e. so that a computer not running Microsoft software can still communicate with the computers that do, e.g. using Samba).
It may be the case that Microsoft's statement from today seems to imply that they are doing something relevant, but it is *NOT* a reply to the original *DEMAND*, which was "just tell us how computers can communicate with computers running MS-Windows".
Source code is not the same as documentation! A meaningful reply to the demand would be a document with the full interface protocol, that's all... no source code necessary.

Indeed! What a bunch of crap...

[Saeed al-Sahaf (665390)]

Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court, and it is certainly politic to tow that line here in Free Beer Land, clear vision reveals that people do have choice, there is still Apple, various Linux, and an assortment of BSDs. Irrational hyperbole can't change the facts. Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.

Re:Indeed! What a bunch of crap...

[Zathrus (232140)]

Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.

Thanks for the sarcasm! Now go read up on the legal definition of monopoly. Pay particular attention to the concept of "de facto monopoly". In order to be a monopoly you do not need to be the only provider of a service -- merely an overwhelming majority. The other key part is that yo

Re:Indeed! What a bunch of crap...

[Zathrus (232140)]

You are not forced to use their products due to that lack of any others because of the actions of Microsoft

Yeah, and back in the early 1900s you didn't have to buy Standard Oil either. Sure, the only non-Standard Oil store was 50 miles away, but you had that choice!

The history of Windows (and MS products on it) is remarkably similar. Sure, you can use DR DOS. Oops, for some reason Windows 3.11 won't work with it! We're sure it's their problem though. Use MS-DOS instead. And you can use something other than

The code's already out

[truthsearch (249536)]

The code is already "out there" in the US government, some schools, and some corporations. And it hasn't hit the streets yet. I imagine few are afraid of the NDA. But they all probably fear that MS put something special in each copy of the code in order to track down the source of any leaks.

Re:The code's already out

[bogado (25959)]

MS put something special in each copy of the code

And you know what that is? Love... MS takes cares that each copy of the windows code has that special touch that makes the code seem likes it got freshly out of your mom's computer.

Windows, now with something special(TM).
Available to you for only an unspecified amount of money.

Re:Wait... That seems... SLANTED???

[oneiros27 (46144)]

You act like it's something new ... just watch any infomercial, or commercial for exercise/kitchen gadgets at 2am:

Have you ever wished you could figure out how to make your application work with Microsoft Windows?

Now you can!

How much would something like this be worth?

We don't know, either ... just send us a blank check, and ask for rush delivery!

Act now, and we'll throw in 12,000 pages of documentation*.

But wait, there's more ... we'll also throw in 500 hours** of FREE tech support!***

--
* some pages intentionally left blank
** no refund for time spent on hold
*** free tech support may incur phone charges on your part.
Offer not valid in countries we're not getting sued for unlawful business practices

Re:Europe

[pubjames (468013)]

Spoken like a true Brit. Those Europeans aren't like us Brits, we're fricking great at everything.

Can someone mod me as "insightful" as well please?

Re:Europe

[lisaparratt (752068)]

Like any self respecting Brit would use the term "fricking"!

Re:How will a price render cloning impossible?

[RingDev (879105)]

If you charge $2.5 million for the code license you can greatly reduce the number of buyers. With some deep buried taging you could even identify which buyer's code was leaked, and then sue them in to oblivion.

-Rick

Troll, but I'll bite

[rewt66 (738525)]

Ever hear of a "free" market? Does that concept ring a bell?

The problem with a monopoly is that there is no free market any more. The monopoly exerts too much control. So to get a normal, free market to function again, you have to control the monopoly.

Digression: Though corporations are legal persons, they aren't real persons. Therefore I don't give a rip about freedom for corporations. I care about freedom for real people - for human beings. If restoring human freedom requires restricting corporations, I'm for it. (And it's looking more and more like this is the case, and not just with monopolies like Microsoft.)