Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Accepts Most EU Demands, But Not Over Source
JoeGi writes "Microsoft sent a letter to EU regulators Monday accepting 20 out of the Commission's 26 demands. According to BetaNews, 'The remaining stumbling block to full compliance is source code licensing' as Microsoft is refusing access to open source projects. Microsoft officials told BetaNews they are trying 'to find a way that companies can implement these technologies in code that would get distributed with open source products, but the source code wouldn't be published itself.'"
I wasn't aware Microsoft had a choice regarding which demands they would accept and would not accept.
The other option is for Microsoft to just stop selling and supporting software in the EU. I honestly believe the EU would recant if MS pulled something like this.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Licensing the source-code does not do much, a much better solution would be to require them to open the patents and specifications up for their drm and media formats. This gives their competitors a firm standing to enter the market with them. It would also allow opensource implementations of their media formats on linux with full drm support.
I guess Bill Gates has left so much 'donation money' on his last Europe visit that he could buy *any* EU law. See the software patent directive - just before the crucial vote, Bill appears, has a diner with the Luxembough EU council presidency and -presto- the directive is through the council. :-(
Such are the ways of the EU law makers...
MS' code being out there would cause nothing but SCO style problems anyway. What is needed is to force (full) disclosure of (actual) protocols and formats. The last thing we need is accusations of improperly using MS' own implementation.
Other people's code isn't necessarily good documentation and usually won't drop into another project's tree anyway. Why is there such emphasis on code? Should we be talking about specifications?
open formats/standards? They should force Microsoft to use the .odf format that KOffice and OpenOffice now use as default?
If they would just take away Microsoft's virtual monopoly on the office document format it would make it easier for users to switch to open alternatives.
I have always said that switching people to open software on Windows is the first step to switching people to open software period.
To me the lack of forced open document formats and standards compliance is the only thing keeping open software from grabbing large market share from Microsoft.
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
As far as I can see, in theory, full and accurate specifications of the APIs and protocols ought to be sufficient to allow interoperability and prevent Microsoft from having an unfair advantage over competitors. The problem is that nobody trusts Microsoft to publish full and honest specs and adhere to them. They are known for having undocumented interfaces and for departing from standards. Forcing them to publish the source would let others determine the actual APIs and protocols by inspection, and we'd know whether the source they published was real because its behavior could be compared with that of Microsoft's binaries. However, this doesn't require that Microsoft license its source under the GPL. People can perfectly well implement Microsoft's APIs and protocols with their own code. What it does require, other than publishing the software with terms that do not prohibit use of the information gleaned in GPL-ed software, is freedom from patents.
Insofar as Microsoft has been convicted of monopolistic behavior, I don't think it has a choice if publishing source code under the GPL is the only way of adressing its improper behavior. It's not like something that is insufficiently in line with capitalism is "cruel and unusual punishment". If Microsoft really doesn't want to publish its source, it seems to me that the only thing to do is to force them to stand behind their specs by imposing significant penalties for differences in behavior between their software and the specs. This could even be a way of diverting the efforts of some crackers - finding discrepancies would be a thrill, and could even be remunerative if a percentage of the fine were awarded as a bounty.
I'm sure SuSE would be more than happy to take up the slack, as would many other non-American companies! This could be a really good thing for the EU.
Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen as the market is lucrative in Europe and there's NO WAY that Microsoft would give it up.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Not to quibble, but MSFT played a waiting game
in the USA -- it only took a regime change for
MSFT to be able to dictate their own punishment.
No doubt, MSFT is playing this same waiting
game in the EU.
Politicians are pretty much alike the whole
world over; money talks, and more money talks
louder. American politicians may find (to their
consternation) that they were bought far too
cheaply compared to their brethern in the EU.
It seems like everyone in this thread is assuming the EU is just going to take it, but no where in that story did I read that they had made a response or statement. They haven't given in yet, it'll be interesting to see how this story unfolds.
So is the stipulation that Microsoft release their source code for current products only, or for current AND future products? I'd say that makes a pretty big difference. If it's just current products, they'll probably go along with the EU eventually and just release a new version of Windows real quick like (Windows 2005? XP and a half?) before Longhorn ever comes out. If it's both current and future, then I'd say the EU is being a bit unreasonable...
IBM walked away from the India market this way in the 1960's. It was a delicious moment for those of us who despise government bureaucrats bearing demands.
It's a touchy situation for both Microsoft and Open Source development.
The only way to write fully interoperable code is to have access to the source code, says the EU. Microsoft counters with a system that allows access to *some* code, and it's very expensive to gain access to it.
This would cut most Open Source projects out because they don't have the bankroll to pay for these fees, and even if they did most of them would be unwilling to pay for Microsoft code they can only look at.
Many commercial firms spend gobs of money on all things most companies spend gobs of money on anyways, and can pay these fees.
On the other hand, Microsoft may also be worried that if they allow access to the source without a high barrier to entry, it could mean lots of Microsoft code floating around the Internet. This is a distinct possibility, considering that you can already get every Microsoft product online.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Are you kidding me? What, pray tell, convinced you that the EU was the shining city on the hill that split from all known history? I always figured it was a bunch of people trying to broker power for their own benefit, that power being granted in turn for keeping some decorum of law and order. Maybe I was the cynic?
I'm hardly an anachist, but show me the government that hasn't fallen and I'll show you a young government.
I hope Europeans can stop complaining about our corrupt government, and Americans can stop whining about European governments in general, and we can all collectively recognize the lameness of basically all big world powers.
And then what? We'll all enroll in Philosophy 101 and get stoned? Ya know, they don't call the Empire an empire for nothing. Enjoy whatever moral superiority you suppose you have. I'll enjoy my days as part of the Empire, and afterwards, we'll see who had a better time.
Not to mention that the EU could instatute some special legislation that would allow them to take the existing products and improve them without the consent or source code from microsoft. This woud absicaly let certain companies get around pattens and copyrights like canada did with some drugs durring the anthrax scare.
It would beinteresting to see somethign like this happen. It would probably entail a team of CS professors deconstructing it and attempting to match the source code well enough to suite the security of the contenent. Plus people are forgeting that microsoft has shown some/most european nations the source code already in an attemp to convince them of no trojans if they use thier products. I would also bet that the EU would release it openly (maybe not opensource) so tha t all companies needing access could make changes as needed.
"Intellectual property" amounts to an artificial government-granted monopoly, anyway. Companies like Microsoft would not be able to exist at all without it.
Anti-trust suits are really the government suing another part of itself.
The idea behind this settlement is for new competition to enter the server market. Open Soure is an important force in the industry and should therefor be able to compete. At this moment Microsoft is going for an easy ride.
By the way, this insightful post gives a nice idea of why this license is incompatiable with open source. It's not all about the money. There are aspects of this license that go beyond the question of whether or not it can be implemented in open source. The license also cripples closed source implementations.
Under this license, if you implement the server interfaces, you cannot deviate from what MS says your implementation has to be. This poses a great problem for companies that want to innovate beyond Microsofts "standards" or that do not want to implement such features as DRM.
The EU should aim for a healthy server market in the best interest of its citizans. This would include multiple, unencumbered and independant implementations, some of which will probably be open source.
"What MSFT is required to do is license their network protocols and provide sufficient documentation to licensees so they can create their own implementations. " Exactly. They still don't have to offer access to there libraries when they don't want to. Third party aps might be required to include redundant libraries separately.