Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft To Share Office Source Code
I_Love_Pocky! writes "According to this article, Microsoft is going to give its source code for Office 2003 to more than 30 different world governments. The purpose? So they can inspect the code for security flaws."
Not only security is the purpose of making it available, but also so that governments can adapt file formats for cross-software compatibility. Now I'm wondering, what will happen if a government wants to adapt this document format to some opensource program, which happen to have a license that requires to donate all adjustments to the code to the opensource community... I'm pretty sure Microsoft will not allow this, will it ?
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
Let's see the Anti-MS crowd flip this around. Because you know they can and will.
Interesting . . . wonder how long it will take to leak out of one of these offices and wind up on file sharing sites?
I didn't realize there was even one world government. I have no idea how they could manage 30 with overlapping jurisdictions... ;)
On the flip side, how many goverments keep enough trained programmers to effectively search through so much complex code?
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Will the real world governement please stand up!
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
Maybe Rob could build this into the core of /. as a spell checker.
And exactly how many of those governments are going to waste their taxpayers money debugging the code for MS, when the license under which they've seen the code, doesn't allow them to do anything with it?
<TIN FOIL HAT>
and what happens when the members of a gov IT team that's licensed this code, then want to use and contribute to an Open Source project that better suits their needs -- hey! they can't! You've signed a prescriptive NDA!
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Only 30 eh? It doesn't mention anything about M.S. letting the US government see the code. Think they might still be a little bitter with that whole "You have a monopoly. We can't let you do that..." thing? Or do you think M.S. is afraid the Department of Homeland Security might issue another advisory saying that Office 2003 is insecure and everyone should switch to Open Office.
"Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff." -- by an Unknown Wise man.
Love this part:
Put identity in the browser.
Because then we too can have the benefit of a world class spell checker
"30 different world governements"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Programmers in 30 countries all seem overcome by fits of laughter.
http://www.22balmoralroad.net/ http://www.tinynetworks.co.uk/
1. We give source code for Office 2003 to more than 30 world governments.
2. They show their brightest computer programmers this code.
3. Trying to comprehend the source (written in typical Microsoft Quality) the programmers' heads implode, causing death within 2 hours.
4. With all the programming talent taken care of, we get all the world governments to outsource their internal I.T. operations to us.
5. We take over the world!
Murray Todd Williams
I'll believe it when the government of Randomistan announces that they received the source code and build tools, and have compiled a version that bit-for-bit matches the retail CD.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
My glass is just half-empty, I guess.
Alos, are any of these governments developing countries? Or southeast Asian? In other words is Microsoft entrusting the code to any governments that seem to take a blind eye to software piracy?
Do 30 different world governments employ programmers who can understand this junk? What are they going to do with the code, exactly? How much money will be wasted around the world?
What a waste of time, but gotta give it to 'em, it's an interesting PR move.
A marathon starts with the first step.
I wonder if governments will be permitted to publish documents describing the file formats? If so, this could be the biggest benefit of the source code being made available to them.
Didn't MS say, if "hackers" can see the code, it would be easier to write exploits for it? Why are they exposing their own code then?!?
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
~~~
While I'm sure it would make it easier for governments to find security flaws, I don't think that goverments will see any benefit in hiring teams of people to hunt for bugs to save MS a few bucks.
Its not open source. Whats so great about doing Microsoft's work for them and getting nothing in return?
Isn't one of the main arguments against Windows that its closed-sourcedness makes it harder for security holes to be found and fixed? To me, it looks like Microsoft has taken the first step in recitfying this problem.
When (not if) the source code is leaked, then how long will it be before MSFT claims that office code was integrated into OpenOffice. How much in royalties will they demand?
Ha, ha! Nobody ever says Italy.
If the government of a country has the source code of the software to examine for security flaws, doesn't this give MS a defense against liability from future lawsuits? For example, if the UK government gets to inspect the source code, continues to use MS-Office, and then has a major problem due to hackers hacking MS-Office; MS can say that the software was given a clean bill of health by the British government, so MS shouldn't be held liable.
I know that no defense is necessarily bulletproof, but this is just going to give MS's legal dept. more ammunition so that that MS can get away with writing sloppy code and not be found as grossly negligent.
* what is 'required' to agree beforehand with? ..and how will this agreement effect ones ability to work (with other 'source code(s)') in the future to come?
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
. . . have people with the expertise to actually check the MS Office source for security holes? Especially given how (probably) huge and internally messy that source code is? (The OO.o 1.1.2 source, which is probably on the same order of magnitude, is over 200MB--compressed.)
I'm wondering if this is a sinister MS plan to taint government programmers?
Will any Open Source project be able to accept code from a programmer that has signed a NDA and seen Microsoft code?
This "offer" seems like a cup of sugar with a teaspoon of poison...!
Why not go with an open source product that has already been audited for security holes by the general public.
Why waste goverment money when there are free alternatives?
So what happens if say North Korea gets the source and finds security flaws but doesn't tell anybody then uses those flaws to exploit USA government workers?
Let M$ delude themselves into believing this will alter a jot. They're so blinkered that they think this kind of thing will turn government IT depatments away from OSS. Hah! It'll probably convince them to accelerate the transition to OSS once they realise what crap is inside that black box called Office and how, even with the code visisble, their hands are tied.
Every move M$ is making right now (Longhorn, DRM etc.) gets me excited about how many more users they're driving to towards OSS.
They want their customers to find their own bugs? Like "hey, we know it's bug ridden and we're admitting it by giving you this, so you find the damn bugs if you're so worried about them". I hope car manufacturers don't follow suit and start making customers fix their own car that's still covered under warranty. "We're not worried about the loud banging sound under the hood. If you are, here's a wrench, have at it".
Sounds like a sneaky way to get a subsidy . . .
If anybody develops for OpenOffice or any other office suite I would not even get in the same room as the code. If you look at the code and develop for OpenOffice then Microsoft will probably come after you saying you stolen their code because you read it and it gave you the ideas and means to do the programming. Be very, very, very careful - why would a proprietary company want people to see it's secrets that has been its cash cow for the past 4 or five years. I think they are gearing up for an attack on open office - now that we have seen part of the agreement between sun and them - why would open office even have to be mentioned in the agreement - it has nothing to do with them. I smell something rotten in denmark.
Why should my tax pounds go to debug MS Windows? If the government wants to spend money on software projects they'd be better off building their own infrastructure designed to be used by and for the people. MS should debug their own software using the money I forked out to buy it. I'm DO NOT want to pay twice.
If this were MS's real reason then they could just provide all of with the source code to any hackers who wanted to look for holes (or... shudder... even a free (as in beer) license). It is protected by copyright in the same way as the OS or apps are. It is easier to copy a CD than recompile the Office CD I suspect!!!
There are so many tin foil hat answers to this it is mind boggling. How long before we see real improvements then?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Looks like MS just found a nifty way to get free (to them) debugging for their code. And what's even better is, EVERYONE else pays, because the time it takes to examine the code has to be paid for, and its coming out of YOUR pocket. Fun fun fun!!
Show'm the code...
Get'm to sign LONG-TERM usage agreements
Go back to Redmond and continue working on the real code!
Speaking of code... wouldn't it be a blast if one of those "worlds" governments propellerheads found proprietary code or IP in MS's code!
I hear the hounds a howl'n!
That's exactly what I was thinking.
If I was a software developer, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near that code. You can be sure that anybody who views this code will no longer be able to work in software development. After you view that code anything you write that works with msft files, will be considered a stolen idea.
Besides, who needs it?
plus... what is the actual outcome supposed to be? will some government-sponsored IT professional point out "this and that is not secure, not reliable, not interoperable" and MS will change it? or is it like "hey, that's fine (and i am not sponsored by MS), everyone should prefer M$ office over Open Office, now that i have seen the revela.... ehm... source-code)"?
someone pointed out that MS might take this as a starter to label itself as "Open Source company", which i personally believe to be utter nonsense, why should MS try to appear as supporter for something it fights with all its power (and money)? i do not think this is what they are aiming at.
summarized, my believe is that the outcome will be an IT "professional" for every participating government feverously pointing out the superiority of MS Office over any other product, proved by source-code examination that cannot be verified or counter-proved by anyone who has not agreed to a NDA.
If you don't learn from history,
then you are an idiot by definition.
--- Vadim Yasinovsky
... running naked up and down the corridors screaming:
The monster has capitulated, the monster has capitulated!!!!
Ahhh don't you love Linux?
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
If you cannot compile the given source to a fully working Microsoft Access (or whatever source is provided), how can you be sure that the program you buy from the store contains the same source code?
You can't, since you most likely can't compile the given source, and keep on using that compiled version!
This is just smoke and mirrors. Now Microsoft can say their code has been provided for auditing by some instance, so it's got to be safe. However, there is no guarantee that the defects found will be fixed at all, and that the fixes will ever be found in the actual product. There is also no guarantee that the software you obtain from the store is the same as that for which the source was provided.
You can easily implant backdoors to the supposedly "audited" source code: just don't give the newly modified source code with the backdoor back to auditing...
I do not moderate.
Why bother? Why would anyone want to work for MS for free?
Allowing you to see bits of the code does not change the fact that MS owns all the rights to it and you still have to pay for MS Office.
If one wants to inspect Office code, OpenOffice is much better way to go.
Its simple download OO at:
http://www.openoffice.org
and best bet no security flaWS!!!!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Just inspect the source of OOo instead.
MS are hypocrites, claiming that Open Source is a problem, yet trying to reap its rewards on their own products.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government has no time/money to spend and do Microsoft's job.
This is totally absurd. How could government engineers take the time to learn of office works, etc,etc the code structure (and I'm sure it's NOT a simple thing) and then search for bugs.
That'd be doing Microsoft's job.
Other commentors have opined that this is a clever Microsoft strategy. Perhaps. I have my doubts.
First, they're implicitly acknowledging the security arguments in favor of open source. What will their corporate clients think? Like _they_ trust the gov't to vet their code for them. Doing this will only strengthen the demand on a number of fronts to see the Windows source.
Second, the only way for two people to keep a secret is if one is dead. I don't care what those EULAs say, if you distribute some of the most valuable closed source in the world to 30...30!...gov'ts, someone's going to leak it. Remember the .bmp buffer overrun? I wonder what's going to flow from this.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
From the article (emphasis added by me)
The new initiative is an extension of Microsoft's Government Security Program, which allows the governments of more than 30 countries to examine most of Microsoft's underlying source code, or software blueprint for its flagship Windows operating system.
What's the benefit in looking at "Most of" the code and seeing if it is secure?
Absolutely nothing at all, apart from Microsoft getting an NDA signed on your behalf by your Govern(e)ment without any consultation with the public.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
I vote that the Principality of Sealand gets a look!
find office to be insecure. Then they might think our country has many good programmers, so much software is imported from America its not good for our economy and there is alot unemployment in our IT sector. Then the government would feel more inclided to support its country's IT companys or make an example to their public and switch to open source. doubtful but I can dream.
That's generally true here in the United States, as well.
Seriously now, what coder in their right mind would sign something that would prevent them from doing future work to look at code they really cant do anything with? As a govmnt programmer, my responce to any superior that asked this would be something along the lines of "F*** You*
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Microsoft should give it that fat bloke out of Jurassic Park because apparently he can debug a million lines of code while pigging out on coke and shaving cream...
There may be sarcasm involved in this post
I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born - Ronald Reagan
I guess most (if not all) liability issues are ruled out by EULA.
If Microsoft are still telling them what they can and can't do with the code, it's not sharing, just disclosure. Not even that if they can't compile their own binaries.
Is it possible to do a worthwhile security audit of Office source if one doesn't have access to the OS source with which it so tightly integrates?
My brother discovered that the best way to make a perfect maze in Racing Destruction Set was to start with the + piece and just click like mad random all over the potential map. After strategically *g* placing about 10 intersections the next 30 minutes would be spent connecting them. This resembles the logic structure for any operating system and accompanying massive application suite (though, metaphorically, at least Linux uses stoplights and everyone drives on the same side of the street). If we take that map and reveal 1/2 the squares (Office source) but black out the other 1/2 (OS source), will we really be able to have a good feel for the security?
As others have noted I feel this is a political play by MS to 1) get free bug-hunting services and 2) gain a stronger voice in political arenas. It's good business for MS but I sure hope that my tax dollars don't get wasted on it. If MS wants beta testers they should pay for them or acknowledge that their product will fall to the superior products.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
This should be interesting to find out if governments will actually do MS's work for them? And for that matter, why should a government do MS's work, and then pay for all the millions of copies of Office, when they can simply go into OpenOffice and update that one and then elect to upgrade to SO or stay with OO.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree that there is a high amount of MS bashing on this site but keep in mind that this site's target audience is not the typical MS apostle.
This is little more than a metacomment, but I have to say this. I'm really not sure that anyone here who finds a problem with MS's actions is anti-MS. The truth is, this is a bullsh. cop-out release of source code. This is NOT open source code.
Also, it is unbearably true that Microsoft has been dealing more and more directly with government officials these days. And taxpayers do, in fact, pay for absolutely everything a government does.
I'm not upset about this particular issue. I'm upset enough about the nature of Longhorn. But these are valid points.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Yeah, whatever the fuck a "governement" is.
Slashdot "editors"; what an oxymoron.
Maybe someone can surgically remove Clippy! YAY! I hate that spiteful little prick.
Me: *searches* "mailing label"
Clippy: Please phrase your query in the form of a question, so I may better serve you
Me: *searches* How do I print mailing labels?
Clippy: Do you want to:
* Print a picture of your dog?
* Set margins?
* Eat flan?
Me: *shoots clippy*
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I'd have to guess that it isn't the USA, but rather Saudi Arabia.
And whoever else sells a lot of oil to the USA.
The bludgeoning foreign policy (and horrific "mistakes" that led to 9/11) of the USA can mostly be traced to trying to satisfy oil-bearing nations like the Saudis. The United States of America is so dependent on oil that it'll do almsot anything with its vast military-industrial-media power in order to satisfy its need.
The USA might be the biggest powerhouse, but it is being led around by the nose by the interests of a certain few who have never set foot in the Americas.
Its Windows that has all the security holes, back doors and spyware, probably not office.
Hey didn't they use zlib, vulnerabilities and all?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but generally People Working At Governments aren't exactly the best and brightest or the best motivated workers. Let's call them Very Good at being Mediocre.
Imagine the following:
Boss: Jim, you're a programmer right?
Jim: uh, right
Boss: Management told me to inspect some code for bugs. I tossed it to the printer. Can you mark all the bugs with magic marker?
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
Microsoft is going to make sure that 30 governments have access to their source code so that they will know where the security flaws in Microsoft Office are. You have to ask yourself, what color hats are these people wearing? Why exactly would I want to use Office after this disclosure?
If developers who look at MS Office code are prhobited thereafter from working on other software projects such as open source projects that cross Office's domain, how many less contributers might there be to open source projects as a result of this?
If a government is going to have to go through all the trouble of inspecting code for security flaws, why not just inspect open source software and at least be able to have a return on investment?
It's one thing when the burden of providing secure code is shared between developer and user in the case of open source software since the benefits and rights to the code are also shared. But in the case of proprietary commercial software, I expect this burden to be on the vendor. The "privilege" of inspecting the source code is really just asking customers for free quality testing. Moreover, if the situation gets to the point that security inspections are needed, then you've chosen the wrong vendor.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Its Windows that has all the security holes, back doors and spyware, probably not office.
Don't forget with Microsoft, there's hardly any distinction between apps and the operating system components.
Thank god other OS's such as Linux aren't stupid enough to allow user-level apps or their installers to install/replace shared libraries directly in the OS, or change the way the OS is configured (registry).
IMO: M$ should wake up and smell the coffee. This reminds me of the part in the 80's movie Weird Science where the guys get in the shower with the chick and they keep their pants on.
Either go 100% open source M$, or don't waste our time. I defecated on my Windows CDs for a reason.
Can they do anything about the bugs they find? Apart from asking Microsoft to fix them, and waiting for the next service pack?
Although nothing was mentioned about the US government being a candidate to look at the code, I'm sure that other governments have something similar to the Freedom of Information Act.
I wonder how good MS's lawyers are, and whether the contracts that they write up for this will be able to ensure that their code won't end up in the public domain, either immediately or some time down the road.
according to the last article they were going to washington to say that open soruce limits innovation. hypocrites..?
irc.enterthegame.com #linux
I thought Microsoft was lobbying aggresively AGAINST open-source.
They claim it stifles economic growth and prevents innovation...
How can anyone trust a company like this?
Liars.
I'll NEVER buy another Microsoft product.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Oh, and yes, we must remember that the Feds/other governments have the finest coders in the world to review, identify and understand the implications of any security faults they pull out.
Move along, we have nothing to fear...
FPO
This is a trick to taint as many programmers as possible. By releasing the source code MS will then be able to go after open source software in a year or two claiming that proprietary code has been used getting the courts to grant them huge sums against various firms using open source products.
This includes those products that were reverse engineered since similar code has to be found in the open source programs to make them compatible with MS programs.
WARNING WARNING Will Robinson!
People keep talking about programmers becoming tainted by looking at proprietary source code, but has anyone ever been sued or prosecuted after having done so?
This is not nearly enough to satisfy governments. First of all, code that they don't compile themselves is not guaranteed to stem from the same set of sources. Second, the source code to the OS, and to the compilers is needed as well, because, hey, what does that black box kernel, dll, or compiler toolkit add to the pristine source?
Responsible governments would either avoid closed-source products completely, or they should require a complete source code system that they could bootstrap themselves. No hidden binary at all!
Would Microsoft provide such a complete, source code system that could bootstrap itself? It was reported many times earlier that they are having a helluvatime to maintain their own compiling environment. Would they be able to package it in such a way that non-Microsoft personnel could do something with it...
... assuming that they were sincere, and not just pulling a cheap PR stunt?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
The Demise of Microsoft In the long saga of the battle between the world and its detested adversary, the Microsoft corporation, everybody is dying to see how the movie end. Everybody also knows that in the movie the antagonist always dies at the end, but the question is how? To most who detest Microsoft vehemently they would like to see a quick and horrid death and those who detest even more so would only find a sadistic pleasure in seeing nothing less than having Microsoft being slowly skinned alive on a burning stake. An IT Fairy Tale Once upon the time, there was a computer software company named Microsoft, whose craftiness in marketing made it become one of the most popular software company on the planet. However, once that company attained its dominant position in the marketplace, greed and fear filled the unsettled soul of Microsoft. The company then aggressively pursued and eliminated almost all of its contenders, names that once were legends one by one fell to Microsoft's sword, WordPerfect, Borland, Novell, Netscape, Corel and more. Soon, people saw Microsoft for what it was, a cunning roguish company that had no conscience to stop itself doing whatever it needs to achieve its ambitions. All the other software companies realized that there will be no end to Microsoft's unquenchable thirst for power but none dared to challenge Microsoft until one day a young knight developed an operating system called Linux. Linux came with a license called Open Source, which represented to all the other companies a platform from which they can rally together in a silent treaty to overthrow the software tyrant. One day, Microsoft woke up and saw a huge army amassed upon the hills, companies that once were shot, wounded, cheated and humiliated now all carry the same banner, the flag of Linux. Amongst the valiant warriors, were IBM, Novell, Sun, Oracle, Sony, Fujitsu, Red Hat and CA and amongst the catapults and shields they used were forged from the power of Open Source, Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla, PosgreSQL, MySql, Python, PHP, Samba and much more. What Microsoft saw shook its heart, however its power to control the market is still immense and with 56 billion dollars in the vault, its going to put up a very good fight. This is the year 2004 and the battle has just begun. The Crystal Ball So my young seer, you wish to see how this battle unfold? First, you have to understand how unlike previous battles where the companies were easily and ruthlessly cut down by Microsoft, this time the catapults and shields that the Allies formed from Open Source were impenetrable, in fact, the more Microsoft attacked the slowly advancing catapults and shields, the stronger the catapults and shields became. How can that be? The magic of Open Source. All artifacts created from Open Source do not obey the laws of the jungle, first of all artifacts are immortalized by having the source code freely distributed across the earth, as Microsoft attacks one point more heads would sprout from different places. Another power of Open Source is leverage, in the old times when a developer was to write a software, he practically has to write most of the libraries himself/herself or purchase or license expensive code sets from other companies like Microsoft. Nowadays, these libraries are all available freely from Open Source, graphics libraries, network libraries, XML libraries, parsers, compilers, were all there for all to share. This is the leverage that hasn't been available to developers before, now all the Davids have slingshots. Rebellion of the Serfs Back to that same once ancient period, almost all developers lived under the direction and command of Microsoft. Their blind obedience contributed immensely to the growth of Microsoft. They created applications of all sorts of shapes and sizes which made the Microsoft platform very popular. All these times while they toiled away using the Microsoft platform, the power of the source code were hidden from them. They used APIs that had features hidden from them. They used document form
No, no. You mean.
7. Profit!
Just give the Office Source code to any organisation to examine, and you will never hear anything from them again, due to overload. Actually that's the best Microsoft could have done to get rid of those bugging gouvernemnts...
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
The Demise of Microsoft
In the long saga of the battle between the world and its detested adversary,
the Microsoft corporation, everybody is dying to see how the movie end.
Everybody also knows that in the movie the antagonist always dies at the end,
but the question is how? To most who detest Microsoft vehemently they would
like to see a quick and horrid death and those who detest even more so would
only find a sadistic pleasure in seeing nothing less than having Microsoft being
slowly skinned alive on a burning stake.
An IT Fairy Tale
Once upon the time, there was a computer software company named Microsoft,
whose craftiness in marketing made it become one of the most popular software company
on the planet. However, once that company attained its dominant position
in the marketplace, greed and fear filled the unsettled soul of Microsoft.
The company then aggressively pursued and eliminated almost all of its contenders,
names that once were legends one by one fell to Microsoft's sword, WordPerfect,
Borland, Novell, Netscape, Corel and more. Soon, people saw Microsoft for what
it was, a cunning roguish company that had no conscience to stop itself doing whatever
it needs to achieve its ambitions. All the other software companies
realized that there will be no end to Microsoft's unquenchable thirst for power but
none dared to challenge Microsoft until one day a young knight developed an operating
system called Linux. Linux came with a license called Open Source, which represented
to all the other companies a platform from which they can rally together in a
silent treaty to overthrow the software tyrant. One day, Microsoft woke up
and saw a huge army amassed upon the hills, companies that once were shot, wounded,
cheated and humiliated now all carry the same banner, the flag of Linux. Amongst
the valiant warriors, were IBM, Novell, Sun, Oracle, Sony, Fujitsu, Red Hat and CA and
amongst the catapults and shields they used were forged from the power of Open Source,
Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla, PosgreSQL, MySql, Python, PHP, Samba and much
more. What Microsoft saw shook its heart, however its power to control the market
is still immense and with 56 billion dollars in the vault, its going to put up a very
good fight. This is the year 2004 and the battle has just begun.
The Crystal Ball
So my young seer, you wish to see how this battle unfold? First, you have to understand
how unlike previous battles where the companies were easily and ruthlessly cut down
by Microsoft, this time the catapults and shields that the Allies formed from Open Source
were impenetrable, in fact, the more Microsoft attacked the slowly advancing catapults and shields,
the stronger the catapults and shields became. How can that be? The magic of Open Source.
All artifacts created from Open Source do not obey the laws of the jungle, first of all
artifacts are immortalized by having the source code freely distributed across the
earth, as Microsoft attacks one point more heads would sprout from different places.
Another power of Open Source is leverage, in the old times when a developer was to
write a software, he practically has to write most of the libraries himself/herself or
purchase or license expensive code sets from other companies like Microsoft. Nowadays,
these libraries are all available freely from Open Source, graphics libraries,
network libraries, XML libraries, parsers, compilers, were all there for all to share.
This is the leverage that hasn't been available to developers before, now all the
Davids have slingshots.
Rebellion of the Serfs
Back to that same once ancient period, almost all developers lived under the direction and
command of Microsoft. Their blind obedience contributed immensely to
the growth of Microsoft. They created applications of all sorts of shapes
and sizes which made the Microsoft platform very popular. All these times
This isn't what it seems its really a fly trap in disguise. Anyone looking at this code will legally be tainted and will have allot of problems producing "open source code". I'm supprised it took Microsoft this long to figure out it could lock in people even more so buy showing them the source code with a big nasty shared source license/contract attached that removes all your rights as a programmer. Yep your now Bills, slave you have seen the forbidden ones true makings though shall not go to open source Nirvana thou shall always be my slave mwahahaha
I don't think that OpenOffice.org developers would see the need to look at this code. They have done pretty well without access to the MS Office sources so far...
Microsoft and many Governments have a common interest in keeping knowledge and power to themselves, and considering individual people as nothing more than consumers and taxpayers. Therefore Microsoft is proposing to collaberate with Governments to keep taxpayers and consumers in their place. If Microsoft was really concerned about improving their code then they would make it visible to all as shown by the example of true open source code.
Remember, if you get to look at the code, and all the agreements you have to sign, you will be effectively tainted for life.. And everything you do from then on will be in question..
All we need is one of the tainted programmers to contribute source to an OSS project to kill that project... Either accidentally, or intentionally....
Actually, tainting intentionally worries me the most.. It would be easy to sabotage projects this way..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Cute headline I thought it said MS has to share office.
Is that a real office or a cube farm/veal pen arrangement?
Other than Adobe Acrobat, is there a program (Open- or Closed-source) that allows PDFs to be edited?
Yes, I have read the PDF specification, so I know that changes can (at least in theory) be tracked and encrypted etc.
However, I have yet to find a single program that can *edit* PDF and do a decent job of round-tripping it as opposed to just outputting PDF as OOo and PDFCreator do.
Karma points for reasonable suggestions.
Could you make sure that Inodnesia gets a copy so everyone can take a look at your source code?
Thanks.
The question is not whether one can inspect the code for security flaws.
The question is whether one can fix them when one finds them.
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
Hang on a second. I thought that even if you let other people review your source code, they're highly unlikely to do so. Isn't that one of the arguments that the anti-OSS crowd march out all the time? Now, Microsoft are doing it, and they're telling people it's for security purposes. Aren't they conceding that this argument is flawed, if they themselves can see some merit in doing so?
Coming up in the news, Microsoft will announce it will start making good design choices, writing good documentation, publishing their binary file formats, and giving away their flagship software for free. For the government. Foreign ones, even. Probably.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
MS is trying to get as many eyes looking at the source to Office as they can. Then Government workers wont be able to work on the OpenOffice code for fear of retaliation from MS. The only reason MS lets anyone look at their code is so that they can spread more fud about the GPL, and scare customers away from FOSS with threats of lawsuits.
Hopefully govt. IT ppl will be careful not to be "tainted" by this source if they are also working to improve OpenOffice.org or other Open Source or Free Software!
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
citing Financial Times Deutschland:
"Wir werden 90 Prozent des Quellcodes von Produkten wie Word, Excel und Powerpoint freigeben", sagt Jason Matusow, der bei Microsoft die so genannte Shares Source Initiative leitet."
Translation
"We will open 90 percent of the source of products like Word, Excel and Powerpoint", says Jason Matuswo, responsible for the so called Shares Source Initiative at Microsoft.
Question:
Would the world be satisfied if Iran would allow to inspect 90% of his nuclear facilities?
Check for pilfered open-source code bases?
You know, this has not been a one way street. the SCO case was possible just because the code base is GPL'd. Wonder if they still have some money left of what Baystar gave them.......;-)
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
The only viable option a government wishing to do this is to do a clean room design. Unless of course there are patent restrictions.
Or unless too many of its talented programmers have seen the Office source code and signed an NDA. Any work they produced on a FOSS implementation of Office could potentially be under heavy scrutiny by Microsoft's legal team.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
2 options...
1 - Get SOME source from MS, bound by God knows what kind of restrictions. Hope you can read it, hope you can modify it, hope that the source doesn't leak. Give MS some security changes then get to buy 10,000 licenses!
2 - Get ALL the source for OO.o, inspect it for security. Hope you can read it, KNOW you can modify it, AND give it back to the public so that OTHER coders can look at it and make sure it's all good. Per-seat licenses? What are those?
Is this realy so hard to realize?
That's what Microsoft is hoping for, it cannot grow it's business fast enough for shareholders, so litigation will be it's new growth vehicle and you will soon see signs like... Welcome to Liechtenstein a wholy owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
I don't want any of my tax dollars spent on anything related to Microsoft products, in order to buy a Microsoft product.
Do they generate a different set of logic for each watermarked bit of code? Is it automagic or manual? How do the developers maintain code which has completely not-understandable code in it that can't be tracked down? What if the two side effects start arm-wrestling? Does it depend purely on the abilities of the programmer to decipher these side effects, or is it automated?
I'm not doubting what your saying, I'm just a little confused as to how the heck one would maintain that code. It sounds like old fortran code which has sections which may or may not be used, but nobody can tell for certain so the program keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I just have grave fears of these really arcane sections of code which even the internal people would have troubles with, let alone any potentially nefarious person. [ think self-obfuscating perl
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Don't trust it! It's all part of a ploy to kill Open Office! They'll claim that part of their code was used illegally, and try and pull an SCO on us. It goes something like this:
Like these people are, or even know, good security experts? I don't think so.
It may only be me, but I'd expect this move to result in 30 countries whose spy agencies now will know vulnerabilities that can be used to spy on their citizens.
If MS was serious about improving their code, they'd be passing it on to White Hat Hackers (based on said hackers past track record of reporting flaws) and security firms.
This is obviously nothing more than a sales move to try and keep governments comfortable with MS software. I doubt any of the rest of us will benefit at all.
Microsoft - You're dumb!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's not the eyeballs that make open source attractive, it's the lack of central control.
If Office was open sourced we could pull the design flaws that lead to security holes out. Back in the '90s there was a smart fellow in Florida who came up with an effective counter to the word macro virus problem... he came up with a macro that disabled all the automatically executing macros, so you could open a Word document with macros without having them trigger. Unfortunately a later version of Word disabled it as part of Microsoft's virus protection feature. Unfortunately Microsoft's feature gave you the option of completely disabling and hiding all the macros, so you couldn't even see what they were, and leaving them enabled. So if you actually needed to use macros you were just as exposed as if they had done nothing... worse, in fact, because you couldn't kill the autoexecute capability.
In an open source project we could back that out, we could even restrict macros to making changes in their own document only, so they couldn't propogate or do harm. But no matter how many eyeballs there are on the code, if the brains behind the eyeballs can't make changes then there's not much point... even if every line of Word was free of buffer overflows, so long as it's got that powerful a macro language with no way to control it the basic security problem remains.
This obviously is a checklist item, designed to satisfy some beancounter that his beloved office will pass the new requirement at first glance.
The move to counter this one is to make a whole lot of 'office software purchase requirement lists' to help gouvernment pencilheads to make a requirements list. The wording in each item is plausible, but designed to exclude closed source products. With the help of all OSS suporters, these will come up on top in google. Supporters with too much cash can buy adwords for them.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
"Microsoft Open Office." You failed it!
MS releases the source code in order to improve security thereby validating one of the main pillars of OSS - more eyes on the code makes for more secure code - although I'm sure you'll never hear them say that directly.
They are opening it up now because at this point it's so bloated that nobody would have time to go thru it during their natural life.
Must-not-watch TV!
Are governments, especially those in competition with America's Microsoft economy, as likely to share insecurity discoveries with the public, or even Microsoft, as the open source community, or the security community? Or are we looking at a group that includes a gang who will pass the source to patrons like spammers and other mafias, which will create new attacks? It's clear that Microsoft must have people who identified this risk. Why does Microsoft love insecurity?
--
make install -not war
Once again, Microsoft gives the source of one of its major components to the foreign intelligence and information warfare departments of 30 foreign governments, including several whose interests are at odds with the US.
...) The NSA!
Tinfoil hat? THINK about it. What department in the US has the talent and infrastructure to examine software for security problems, and is charged with, among other things, protecting the US information infrastructure? (drumroll
They had to SIGN AN AGREEMENT? Since WHEN do the spooks play by the rules? (Remember when the CIA stole that little company's banking application, hotwired it with spyware, undersold it into all the major banks in the world, used the backdoor to trace dictators' (and who knows who else's) funds, and used soverign immunity to kill the suit from the original author?)
Is it just a coincidence that, soon after the source code for the OS was given to the same groups we began to experience a series of worms installing spam forwarders, and keyboard loggers collecting account data for phishing scams, apparently run by the Russian mob (composed mainly of former members of the Red Army)?
Seems to me that Microsoft is just ASKING for a charge of treason, come the next major world conflict.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just like OSS, having access to the code means that there is still /zero/ chance that anyone will actually inspect the code...
at the station:
"wheres my train?"
"it left off an hour ago"
Ah, yes...
Got the spelling correct. Now lets work on context.
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
North Vietnam
China
Japan
Germany
Russia
And anyone else with their eyes set on world destruction by utilizing its Nazi-like ways just like MS!
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
With the government "techs" I had the pleasure of working with, this is equivalent to asking a USian 5th grader to make a working Saturn 5 armed with popsicle sticks and string. We're talking about half the techs in one department resigning because the dept Director mandated all machines would be upgraded to use W2k instead of 95, and the techs said W2k was "way too complicated."
Yeah, right.
The purpose? So they can inspect the code for security flaws.
Oh, bullcrap! The reason governments are examining the code is not for security flaws but for security compromises built into the code on purpose.
Microsoft has spent so long screwing so many people that no one trusts them anymore. The unfortunate thing is that, without the ability to compile the code themselves, participating countries still have no guarantee that what they are examining is really what they will be running.
I believe this is called having one's cake and trying to eat it too.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Hopefully the more eyes looking at the source code will mean that more of the security problems will be fixed earlier and that the overall quality of the product will be improved.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Is Microsoft hoping that they can kill more open source by making copyrighted code available? Do they hope they will then find it in something like OpenOffice.org or AbiWord so they can sue those projects into non-existence?
If that's the case, how is this possible? ...
Nothing is truly original. Writing an original program is the result of taking ideas from other people's work, and putting them together in a different way.
Here's a story: Some talented and enthusiastic programmer (like I hope to be) from viewing Microsoft's "shared" code and saying to himself "Oh... That's how they do that.". Then this person closes the Microsoft code, never to look at it again, and makes some new changes to the code in OpenOffice.org based on his experience and understanding of all of the code that he has read and learned from in the past.
Can Microsoft now sue this person?
If so, Brian Kernighan and Dennis Richie have one Hell of a Payday coming from their lawsuit.
And mayhap the use of the apostrophe as well?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Hoping I'm not about to submit an embarrassing typo now... :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
which allows the governments of more than 30 countries to examine most of Microsoft's underlying source code
---
Well, now. That just makes everything allwhite, now doesn't it?
Shared != Open
It's a publicity stunt. Do you really think the code is for real. By the time the countries around the world figure it out, there will be a Windows extralonghorn 2008 enterprise edition service pack 16 + 19 million hotfixes available.
M$ need to stop this bullshit. Go back to what you do best. Flood market with buggy products and make generous donation to avoid taxes!
you know... har har?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
"Seeing the source code" does not taint you. Only if you sign an NDA are you "tainted". You are not even tainted if you see the source code without permission (though that means that either somebody who signed the NDA is guilty of violating it, or you are guilty of breaking and entering or industrial espionage)
It is true that if you copy the code you are doing a copyright violation. This is because copyright is defined by US law as existing without signing any contract. But just seeing the source code and learning ideas from it does not violate any normal US law.
If what you were saying was true, then Steven King must have never read anybody else's horror novel, as that would "taint" him and make it impossible for him to write his own.
This is also why looking at GPL code does not "taint" you and prevent you from working on closed-source. Microsoft hires thousands of programmers who have looked at GPL code at least once, so they know this big piece of FUD is false, but they continue to spout it.
"...but also so that governments can adapt file formats for cross-software compatibility."
I haven't read the agreement or seen the code but I would be surprized if Microsoft didn't have a NDA attached and restrictions on use of their patented IP.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
By default in the US, no, because compilation of a computer program is preparation of a derivative work. Of course, this depends largely on what the client agrees to and what is covered in copyright law there (which can vary, despite how widely the US is able to export its copyright regime around the world via so-called "free trade" agreements). I'm guessing that Microsoft isn't going to allow anyone to share or modify the source code, or prepare derivative works from that source code.
In other words, it's still not free software and it would not benefit anyone (whether you are an individual programmer, would-be programmer, or representative of a government) to look at it lest they be accused of infringing upon Microsoft's copyright in the future.
Digital Citizen
Hi, I tried the google link you provided but didn't get very far. For a game client server architecture is it possible to check if the client has been modified? (I'm thinking about go, but it would apply to chess too).
Specifically, the current go servers are quite anti open source for fear that somebody will modify their client to add (e.g. offline editing) when they're playing as well as when they're just watching games.
But it would be really cool if people could modify their clients but just not connect to the official server with a modified client. Even better if the unmodified client could be built on different archs and still connect to the official server.
I guess quake must have similar problems?
Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
http://shit.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/0 13243
1. Get Sun to agree that OpenOffice users have no protection against patent infringment.
2. Make Office code widely available to governments.
3. Target Linux-based OpenOffice developers.
4. Game over, man.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
I imagine the the percentage given of "seeable" code is a number provided by Microsoft. Take it for what you will.
I'm curious who the third party is, and what the code involves.
what a bunch of crap. The governments won't spend the money to hire people good enough to find all that is wrong with this code... not only that, but the majority of security flaws aren't gonna be found in a office suite... they will be found in the OS/server/browser software. So when all is said and done on this deal MS will just have more "evidence" that their software is safe. Those bastards make me sick.
MICROSOFT: if you want your softare to be more secure why don't you let US take a look at the code. fine keep the license... but if you had good code you shouldn't mind us taking a peek... or would we find too many dangerous flaws?
Obama is a twitter sock puppet
Is it just me or does it sound like a bad thing that all these governments are going to be searching for security flaws?
I want to outsource to my government tooo!!!!
This is a great and acurate portayl of the doom that Microsoft will inevetiably face. the Linux uptake is growing every day and users are getting sick of the crap that is microsoft and are seeing that there are alternatives. I think linux is now getting better at aiming at dumb ass users who want to feel like there still using windows which i think is a good step in the right direction to fufill the demise of Microsoft. there will always be people who just don't want to know shit about anything and if Linux can aim at these users i believe well see this great fall happen sooner than latter!
What can governments be thinking if the buy into this i.e. pay licence fees for the code, pay for the cost auditing the code, pay to debug the code and then pay for the next round of licence fees for the inevitable upgrade.
Great profit for Micrsoft, I know it likes to use (abuse) it's customers as free bug testers but now they expect us to fix the code at our expence as well (tax payer funded).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
in short - "best, post, ever!"