Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's European License Dissected

Posted by timothy on from the in-the-name-of-science dept.

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet has published a step-by-step explanation of Microsoft's proposed server interoperability license, which was just rejected by the European Commission. The EC said the license excluded open-source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees -- all bad for business."

8 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Here is a question by orin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is it reasonable to force Microsoft to produce a license that is royalty free - or are people concerned about the cost here.

    By looking at the article it seems as though Microsoft wants to charge people royalties who create a competing product when those people have looked at Microsoft's secret API. This seems reasonable - why should someone be able to sell a competing product that does the same thing as a domain controller of global catalog server after they've been able to look at Microsoft's secret APIs?

    The reverse engineering clause seems to cover SAMBA and so on - they don't have to pay a license fee because they haven't seen all the secret stuff.

    1. Re:Here is a question by FLAGGR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because the royalties are extremly high, didn't you read the article? Plus, it bars you from doing open source stuff with your code.

    2. Re:Here is a question by orin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but the restriction against "doing open source stuff" is very specific. You are only restricted IF you look at the secret stuff. If you reverse engineer - no restrictions apply. Why should you be able to look at Microsoft's secrets and then build a competing product that does exactly the same thing for free? Reverse engineering is quite different (no look at the crown jewels) and doesn't apply to this license.

    3. Re:Here is a question by sepluv · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, No. The EC are not doing this because Microsoft are a monopoly or even a near monopoly (which is more accurate), but because they have gained their monopoly by criminal means and are using it to illegally extend their monopoly to other markets.

      There is nothing wrong with monopolies, per se; it just means you have make a product which everyone thinks is better than the competitions (think BIND, Apache) unless you have got the monopoly through clandestine criminality, a la Microsoft, as opposed to free market forces.

      --
      Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
      [This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
  2. Article summary by ites · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. You will pay royalties
    2. Open source is explicitly disallowed
    3. Microsoft can audit your development
    4. They get to see your code
    5. They get to see your technology
    6. They get to choose the auditor
    7. You may have to pay the audit
    8. Microsoft suggest you "trust them".

    ROTFL. Excellent article.

    If this is the price of interconnection, it makes it all the easier to justify why Microsoft's server technology should be isolated, relegated, and eventually thrown discarded.

    There are, after all, alternatives.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  3. NOPE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    NO code is required to be released by the EU compliance request. None. Nada (Not NDA). Zip.

    MS have broken the law. Either they open up the API to competitors or they go (all of them) to jail. As an individual, I don't get the choice of charging for my time if I am forced to do community service, am I. If I pay a fine, I don't get to deduct costs, do I. If I'm under a restriction order, I don't get to break it because it stops me from going anywhere I want.

    So why does MS get to charge for interoperability?

    Note also that the EUCD means that if interoperability requires breaking DRM, then you CANNOT reverse engineer. If the protocols are patented, then you cannot bypass them.

    See how easy it is.

  4. Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain? by roemcke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fast forward to paragraph 6 about confidentiality. Just be careful when reading it, or your head will explode...

    I think I was the first person in 7,500.000 years managing to read this without getting killed..

  5. Re:No GPL, but what about Public Domain? by roemcke · · Score: 2, Informative
    It is here Here

    (I just followed the links in the ./ article ;-)