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."

Nothing new

[truthsearch]

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.

Re:How much?

[Spy der Mann]

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

These guys [reactos.org] would.

MS has already licensed the code to universities

[I'm Don Giovanni]

This isn't a big deal.
Microsoft has already licensed Windows source code to over 100 universities, listed here:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/univer sity/ntsrclicensees.aspx [microsoft.com]

More details:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/univer sity/NTSrcLicInfo.aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:Already been done (sort of)

[BigDuke6_swe]

Taking part in a shared source program with Microsoft has been criticized before by the open source community for being a great risk to the developer that looks at the MS code.
Isn't there the same problem with this new initiative?

http://www.ossl.nl/opensource.org/advocacy/shared_ source.php [www.ossl.nl]

Shared source licenses include a requirement that the licensor agree to treat Microsoft's code as confidential proprietary data. It follows that any developer, once he has seen shared source code, can be enjoined under trade-secrecy law from any activity that Microsoft considers to be competitive with its code.

Shared source, therefore, behaves like a virus that infects developers' brains. Once you let it into your organization, you must keep careful track of which developers have been contaminated, avoid deploying them to any projects which might compete with a Microsoft product, and even erect "Chinese walls" between projects so that no knowledge from shared source can leak into projects with competitive implications. Failing to implement any of those precautions could result in your organization's being sued for ruinous compensatory damages by Microsoft's armies of lawyers.

Re:Not sure of that...

[MMC Monster]

http://www.fs-driver.org/ [fs-driver.org]

Or maybe this one. It's the one I use. Works great in XP with SP2 and all other patches applied. The only thing is, if you want to resize the ext2/3 partition (using partition magic) you have to use the applet in the control panel to unmount it first.

Re:Nothing new here

[killmenow]

Your understanding does not jive with my memory. This entry in Wikipedia sums up more accurately how I remember it (I was working as a consultant doing Citrix installations and such at the time):

Microsoft licensed the source code to NT to Citrix, and in 1995 Citrix began to sell WinFrame, a stand-alone system based on Windows NT 3.51 (MultiWin). Development of WinFrame 2.0 was derailed in early 1997 when Microsoft withdrew the license to NT 4.0 from Citrix, although later negotiations led to Microsoft agreeing to license Citrix technology for Windows NT Server 4.0, resulting in Windows Terminal Server Edition. Citrix agreed not to ship a competing product, but retained a set of "enterprise-level functionality" which it could sell as an extension to Microsoft's products. This toolkit was initially sold under the name 'Metaframe.' This complementary relationship continued into the Windows 2000 and XP eras, with Citrix offering Metaframe XP and Presentation Server. [emphasis mine]

As I recall it, Microsoft basically incorporated Citrix technology into NT4 for TSE and was going to just shove Citrix in front of the bus, so to speak. Many in the press at the time were calling it a death knell for Citrix even. Citrix managed to negotiate with Microsoft, agreeing to stop selling WinFrame, a fully competitive product, and focus only on MetaFrame, their add-on product. Citrix has managed to survive and flourish; but, make no mistakes, it's not because Microsoft didn't try to cut and run.

The original EU decision from march 2004

[fritsd]

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.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[nm42]

if they don't, then the CEO can go to jail

Nice try, but officers of a company are protected by something called the Business Judgement Rule. If an officer decides some action (not trading in EU) is warranted (releasing source code might, in his eyes, jeapordize their product), they cannot be punished just because the shareholders disagree with that action. As long as they acted in Good Faith, they are protected - even if the choice was wrong.

They could be ousted by the shareholds and replaced, but they would not be criminally liable.

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

[Zathrus]

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 Excel or Word too... except that those applications don't have the undocumented-yet-supported APIs that let Word/Excel run faster and more stable. Oh, and by the way -- Dell, Gateway? You can sell any operating systems you want. But you'll pay for Windows no matter what. Oh, sure, you don't have to do that -- but then we'll just charge you twice as much per license. That's fair, right?

Methinks you have a short memory for the "actions of Microsoft".

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Overly Critical Guy]

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:Indeed! What a bunch of crap...

[Zathrus]

Ah yes, the secret undocumented Microsoft super-API

It's not undocumented. There were several books (not by MS of course) that documented the undocumented API calls in Windows 3.0, 3.1, Windows95, and Windows98. The better of them even listed what advantages they had over the documentd calls and which Microsoft programs used them. If something like Word or Excel used them then you could damn well count on them being available in later versions as well, even though they were not officially supported.

Were they super? Generally no... but they did have advantages in ease of use (mostly) or speed (less often). There were a few cases where a single API call replaced a hundred lines or more of convoluted logic to acheive the same thing.

Note that I don't have an issue with undocumented APIs -- they're common in software. And there are reasons you don't expose them, particularly if the API in question is actually a clever hack that may break later on because it takes advantage of unexpected behavior, or a "feature" that you should really get rid of at some point. The issue is that Microsoft's own application division appears to have had access to these calls (and their documentation) when nobody else did. At that point in time Microsoft had a de facto monopoly on the OS (which, realistically, was done in a fair marketplace), but not on application software (they were, at best, in distant second). By leveraging the OS monopoly they were able to create an application software monopoly -- and that's illegal.

Go ahead. Google for "Undocumented Windows API". There's plenty of hard evidence for this "meme".