Microsoft Agrees to License Windows Source Code 423
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."
Re:Fork (Score:1, Insightful)
This would also be a really easy way for MS to get those developers tossed into jail or fined to hell and back.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why should an robber be forced to give up his freedom and go to jail? Because he broke the law. Simple as that.
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:4, Insightful)
The code's already out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
More likely though, they will lobby to change the laws because they don't want to lose one of their biggest markets.
Another great move by Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What a bunch of crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What a bunch of crap... (Score:1, Insightful)
For the good of the market. Market freedom implies that new players can enter the market freely. When you are unable to enter the market at reasonable cost because a monopolist has used its power to lock you out, that's when the government is supposed to step in to lower market barriers, so the market remains free.
It's simple economics (any book on market forces covers this). Monopoly + raised market entry barriers = inefficient (non-free) market. This is good for the monopolist, but bad for the market (and by extension, bad for society). Corporations only exist as a tool to serve society. From the moment their actions start to hurt society they lose any privileges they may have.
Though, ofcourse, whether microsoft is an abusive monopolist is a point you can argue about.
Re:How will a price render cloning impossible? (Score:3, Insightful)
-Rick
Indeed! What a bunch of crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
this shouldn't actually work (Score:2, Insightful)
I will be personally surprised if this is accepted or even an appropriate response to the council.
So, anybody read the article? Raise your hands now (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Troll, but I'll bite (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop cloning or emulation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Microsoft's.
The question is, why wouldn't Microsoft use open protocols in the first place?
HTTP, POP3, SMTP and FTP are all non-proprietary protocols that Microsoft uses, and that other companies also use. The only reason Microsoft has its own closed protocols is to get them used by the majority of computer users, via its monopoly, thereby unnecessarily locking out or making life extremely difficult for the competition (e.g. Samba).
Re:Indeed! What a bunch of crap... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 you must attain that status not through level competition, but by doing illegal things to your competitors (sabotaging products, not properly sharing information even handedly, giving preferential treatment to resellers based on whether or not they sell a competitor's product, etc).
And yes, MS was found guilty of being a de facto monopoly. That has no bearing on whether or not Linux, BSD, and Apple are "viable operating systems" or not.
If you're going to start talking about the facts, then it's useful to actually know them first.
Re:And it will LEAK 24 hours later! (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't mean anything (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:How much? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, yes! They've got this all worked out.
* I hope the court freezes their assets in the EU.
Codeweavers/Cedega/WINE (Score:5, Insightful)
Interoperability shouldn't need the source code (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
MS-fixer (Score:2, Insightful)