Slashdot Mirror
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."
Man, and all we get is clippy to help us out.
"If you have legs and are flammable, you are never blocking a fire exit." -- Mitch Hedberg
what is MS worth right now???
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS, developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code.
One Cajillion Dollars
"free technical support to those who purchase a license."
So thats what Microsoft calls free.... Free is what you get when you purchase somthing... AHH...
Does that mean that Microsoft competitors will be able to add MS(c)SecurityHoles(tm) in their products to ensure compability with all kinds of exploits?
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
From TFA: Software developers still will have to pay for the code
Does somebody have an idea about this price ?
How long will it take before this code hits the streets?
How long will it take before a fork is on the net?
This would also be really helpfull for wine and samba developers.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?
What next? Game developers will be forced to make their source code available to I can get a character editor to work 100% properly? Is Blizzard going to be forced to reveal their source code so that we can write a better version of Gear?
I'll admit it, I'm shocked. However, I have to ask the question? What is this going to change?
Once this hits pirate land, are we in for more trouble than good?
Yet another reason to go with a Mac. The Mac, by using source code that stays private, is much more secure.
As Frankie Brooks says in the seminal book, "The Mythical Man Month" when the source code gets released it will increase the odds of new sxploits by Olog(n). I think that speaks for itself.
Frankly I think this whole zeitgeist of having access to the source code will turn and over time we'll go back to the days when code was kept private and we had less exploits.
Warmest regards,
--Jack Wagner
With the actual source and another pair of eyes looking at it, there should be more security fixes and hopefully a more secure OS.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
The question is will it be complete and compile? Don't they have to hide parts of Windows that are licensed from other companies?
Windows will still be distributed as binaries, having this source code does not give any guarantee about what's really running on your system.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I read that post three times over wondering what the hell Britain had to do with Microsoft's mentality regarding competition. Then I noticed the subject field said 'Europe'...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
If they publish XP but not Vista the usefulness will be limited. They also need to commit to release new versions as early as possible. It's not a lot of help for interface developers to know how the last version worked when MS has a long history of breaking backwards compatibility
Britain (the UK) is actually a part of europe. There are in the EU also.
If Valve were forced to release the Steam source and leave it open to competent individuals who might actually be able to keep it running.
One can only dream.
developers will still have to pay an unspecified amount for the code
That means it's either free, or will cost trillions of dollars. I vote for the latter.
DEVELOPER: I'd like to purchase your code, please.
MS: Sure, no problem! Sign here.
DEV: Wait, how much is this again?
MS: It's an unspecified amount.
DEV: Oh, okay, that's right. Here is my signature. My company will foot the bill.
MS: We will send the bill soon--it will take a few weeks to finish printing. Very good doing business with you, sir. You are an intelligent man. We are a small company.
...that the source code that MS supplies ain't exactly the same code as what was compiled to make the the shipping copies of the Windows executables?
For development questions i recall MS tech support being very expensive. I used it once and i think the question cost nearly $500 and the answer for all the money was a succinct "You can't do that".
Given a quantity discount the tech support hours that they provide must be at least $250 each, so that's $125k of "free" tech support. I doubt i'll be licensing their code any time soon.
This is a dumb arguments to justify putting a price on it, the real reason is to profit from a court decision. Do they imply people with money don't copy? We all know it's not true, quite the oppsite. Let's pretend it's true though, what will prevent a group of people to gather the money and then clone the OS?
Ever been annoyed at having to keep a FAT32 neutral-zone on your dual boot system because nobody's yet worked out how to write to NTFS without wrecking everything?
That's the kind of thing this will hopefully lead to. It's all about interoperability. Unfortunately, knowing MS, the terms and conditions will be fricking deadly, and no open-source coder will so much as look at MS code for fear of contaminating themselves legally, so we shouldn't get too optimistic...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
Britain rejects the EU's socialist bearings. That's why Britain's economy outshines all of Europe's.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
The code is already "out there" in the US government, some schools, and some corporations. And it hasn't hit the streets yet. I imagine few are afraid of the NDA. But they all probably fear that MS put something special in each copy of the code in order to track down the source of any leaks.
Developers: We can use your help.
The price, in money and terms, will be too high for businesses. What it will mean that foreign governements will have similar access to what the US already has. The government(s) can make custom backdoors etc.... with their own people. They can give them back to MS who compiles and distributes.
I wonder whose version of M$ I'll get in the future?
I wonder if it will cover 2003?
Actually, Microsoft is already licensing the Windows source code. However the significance of the new event is, they will not be choosing the licensor (at least not as much as before).
i censing/default.mspx. You'll see that the top item mentions "access to Microsoft Windows® source code for internal development and support purpose". And as far as I know there are already many utility producers (Symantec, WinInternals, etc) that can access NTFS source codes.
For a list of microsoft shared source licencing programs look at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/L
Anyways do not keep your hopes too high. As you can see there are many shared source licenses (some are even like BSD), however Windows is not becoming "Open Source" soon.
Kinda hard to compete when the company in question is a convicted monopoly abuser (both in the US as well as the EU) and the country in which they're incorporated won't do anything more than slap them on the wrist.
Yes, European publishers (as well as other American publishers) cannot compete with Windows, but it is not because they cannot make a better product.
Nicely played by Microsoft.
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 $2million dollars.
This will have consequences on projects like Wine, Samba or ReactOS because some legal mechanism will be in force so that you can't look at the Windows source and rewrite it, let alone cut-n-paste it. What those guys need to do is ensuring any development is clean-room. What I see as conceivable is that someone (the FSF for instance) pays for one licence and the devotes some effort into releasing documents which describe accurately the internals in plain language. Obviously, the people who do this job must not contribute any code to any project.
It seems to me as if Nelly Kroes is not pleased by this action, because this doesn't help in any way but M$ to accuse open source developers that they have stolen the code.
Name one game developer that has control over the vast majority of desktop computers. Can't? That's why they're not "forced" to reveal their trade secrets.
BTW, they're not being forced. They can stop offering their software in Europe.
Developers: We can use your help.
Now I can learn how to create secure bugfree code from the masters.
http://saveie6.com/
In other words, what are you smoking (and how is this insightful)?
So MS get ordered to hand over documentation for their protocols. They do so. It's crap and they're ordered to go back and do it properly.
So they respond with "figure it out yourself. After paying us some cash obviously."
Does anyone actually think this is an acceptable response?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
(I only mod down _bad_ trolls. Or ones that copy trolls I've seen before. Trolling, when done well, is a valid artform, and a core part of geek culture, and is to be encouraged :)
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Spoken like a true Brit. Those Europeans aren't like us Brits, we're fricking great at everything.
Can someone mod me as "insightful" as well please?
Ahem, Britain is in Europe as far as I know...
But I really don't have a clue of WhoTF Jack Wagner is, so I can't tell whether you're sarcastic or not :-/
Microsoft has licensed its source code in the past (think Citrix circa NT 3.51) to those who could meet their terms. Of course, Microsoft tried to "sweep the leg" on Citrix with NT4TSE; but Citrix, unlike so many others who have gone to bed with Microsoft, managed to survive.
Just remember about how Microsoft has *always* licensed their source code: under their terms. Sure Microsoft will license their source code. But you can bet the agreement(s) you must sign to license it will be lengthy, ambiguous where it benefits Microsoft and iron clad where it benefits Microsoft, giving only the bare minimum necessary to pacify the EU, and most definitely not free.
What would be most to a government is that they can audit the source code to make sure there are no back doors and then build the software and either compare digital signatures with the distro or use the one they built themselves.
If Microsoft's providing a complete set of source code with the build environment, this might make it acceptable for government use. If not, it's just PR hype.
12000 pages saying "please trust us" is not enough.
i hope it gets leaked on the web.
that way i can cut-and-paste it into a Obfuscated code contest!
i don't care
the any company happens to be a monoply in this case
I honestly do not believe a company should be forced to opening up secrets to competitors. Does this mean the competitors will open their source code up, so Microsoft can see theirs too? Seems like a fair deal to me. If Microsoft does open the source...I would be willing to bet there would be a plague of new exploits found...which is both good and bad. Good in the sense they will be patched w00t! Bad in the sense...until they are patched, its going to be a hell of time for us IT Admins :( To put this into perspective...Coca Cola has their own secret formula to making Coke, does that mean they will have to open their formula up to Pepsi? Just some food for thought...
It's not free as in beer that people want, but free as in speech that people seek. This is only real news if Microsoft license adds claus of freedom for licensee to do what they want with licensed IP. Until then, it's just a different spin on the same old.
Sure?
o rder/2004rank.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank
What Europe asked for, IIRC, was documentation. Microsoft has so far failed to produce any of a sufficient standard (i.e. that can be actually understood by a programmer), so they're apparently offering source code as a substitute. For a fee, of course.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the US government has had access to the code for years and we haven't seen much improvement. They do notify MS of at least some issues they find. The OS is probably more secure today because it. I guess things would be even worse if less people were looking at it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Did I just see a pig fly by overhead?
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
Spoken like a true Brit. Those Europeans aren't like us Brits, we're fricking great at everything.
Yup. And the only region in the world where England is better than Brazil when it comes to soccer.
Just something to think about, whatever side you're on.
This is a happy day for M$ opponents! Why? This will multiply the exploits in Windows by a hundredfold and nobody will be able to use their crap OS. Linux and Mac will be happy to service the hundreds of millions of people looking for an OS that works! Hurray!
Are you well? I'm British, but I can't help but notice that Germany IS THE WORLD'S LARGEST EXPORTER OF MANUFACTURED GOODS. Bigger than the USA (world's largest economy), bigger than China (world's largest country), bigger than Japan. The fact that Germans make more stuff than Britain I can cope with (they're bigger than us, after all) but the fact that they beat both the US and Japan is amazing. Who gives a shit if Britain MIGHT have lower unemployment (can you trust the UK unemployment numbers???).
I'm assuming $1 mill, somewhere around that area.
I'm taking bets on which torrent tracker this source code will be up on first.
In my opinion this could turn out really good, or more likely, really really bad for microsoft. Possiblely making the OS easier to exploit, does anyone agree with that?
{
oblig code
}
Can you link to _any_ materiale that shows that the British economy outshine the scandinavian/nordic countries? Those are actually the most socialist contries in Europe.
This isn't a big deal.r sity/ntsrclicensees.aspx
r sity/NTSrcLicInfo.aspx
Microsoft has already licensed Windows source code to over 100 universities, listed here:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/unive
More details:
http://research.microsoft.com/collaboration/unive
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Though Microsoft was defined as a monopoly in court, and it is certainly politic to tow that line here in Free Beer Land, clear vision reveals that people do have choice, there is still Apple, various Linux, and an assortment of BSDs. Irrational hyperbole can't change the facts. Question: If, as you say, Microsoft is a monopoly, are you than admitting that Linux and BSD are not viable operating systems? Of course that can't be true can it? We know in fact that Linux and BSD are viable operating systems.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
They have been asked to document their protocols such that their competitors (mostly open source) can compete. Licensing their server software is much like asking a politician one question and them answering the question they wanted you to ask. Of course the open source vendors can not sign the NDAs this will require. and Microsoft can't seem to get their shit together to document their protocols, probably their biggest problem behind the scenes.
I will be personally surprised if this is accepted or even an appropriate response to the council.
this is bullshit, i cant belive they have been bullied into having to release their source, they own it, they have the right to do whatever they want with it. who is the EU to tell them what they HAVE to do because they dont agree with it being closed.
portfolio
That's why Britain's economy outshines all of Europe's.
Really? On what basis? In terms of pure GDP, Germany is larger. If you prefer GDP per capital I believe Ireland and Norway beat the UK. If you want to talk about salaries I believe three or four countries rank higher. If you want to talk about standard of living about ten European countries rank higher than the UK (according to the Economist, a UK publication). If you want to talk about growth then quite a number of countries rank higher.
I'm not saying that the UK economy is not good, it is, but it is unfortunately common to come across people who think like you in Britain.
And what would the UK economy be like if it wasn't so tied to the USA? Why do you think Blair is Bush's bitch? Read up on the USA economically punishing the UK for its lack of participation in the Vietnam war if you want a taste of what the UK economy would be like if it didn't have the support of the USA...
And that's without clippy to help you...
What does Microsoft not want? Competition. In particular, they do not want open source competition in the server platform arena.
How will this aid that goal? That is the question to ask.
Why would Microsoft do this, rather than provide complete, accurate, usable documentation of the interface between Windows servers and client stations? Why license source code instead?
Simply, this provides another method for Microsoft to control competition through licensing and restrictions. This will not help the small developer, the startup or the small business. Will Microsoft really provide a license that is conducive to permitting Linux servers to replace Windows servers transparently?
Microsoft's ultimate goal as a business is to protect the interests of its shareholders, meaning protect Microsoft's market and maximize revenue and profitability. If this doesn't aid, or at least very minimally harm that goal, then they wouldn't be doing it without a knock-down drag-out fight.
Larry
Would this mean that Wine developers could get access to the code and use it to improve the development speed and quality of the Windows emulation?
That's interoperability right?
Well, the artcile cleary states:
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.
That should be enough for the trouble of taking it off their hands. And I'll sign all sorts of agreements promising to never share it with anyone, too. Gladly.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
And also why the Irish economy is kicking the British economy's ass. Britain is in decline, while Ireland and much of europe is in the ascendency.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Like any self respecting Brit would use the term "fricking"!
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.
but I had to post this http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/c0rnn/moron .jpg
that you can use Linux/Mac/HP or whatever, but you cannot use them to replace a windows server. The protocols to do so are only reverse engineered and broken in any case. MS also want to use encryption to make sure you cannot be a server in a heterogenous network if it includes Windows machines.
So, no, there isn't a replacement.
these will be out soon enough. nothing that has roots in technology stays secret for very long.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
That's right. Brits aren't Europeans. Oh wait...
I'm not sure this first step will be fully successful, but it seems to me that Microsoft has no choice but to release sooner or later its control of the lower level layers of Windows:
Assuming a competitive, market-based, economy, any software of sufficiently broad usage is bound to become free, as its marginal production cost is null. The free software movement is nothing more than the social expression of this basic economical fact. As a consequence, the software industry is bound to live on the margins generated by software innovation and specialization.
Read more...
Ever hear of a "free" market? Does that concept ring a bell?
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.)
the EU twisting their arm to do it. They don't wanna... So, there is something to see here.
Actually, It's becuase we have better Supply Side policies.
My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
Merriam-Webster defines monopoly as: ownership or control that permits domination of the means of production or the market in a business or occupation usually for controlling prices and that is achieved through an exlusive legal privilege (as a governmental grant, charter, patent, or copyright) or by control of the source of supply (as ownership of a mine) or by engrossing a particular article or commodity (as in cornering the market) or by combination or concert of action.
To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft's marketing of a popular OS does not fit this definition. It lacks 'legal privilege,' 'control of the source of supply' (to what? code? anyone can write an OS if they so choose), or 'by engrossing a particular article or commodity.' Windows OS a commodity? I don't know what country you live in, but in the US, Windows is not the only OS out there, nor even the best for particular applications. So, what's left? It appears that some people would like to tag Windows a monopoly when it obviously isn't for their own purposes... whatever that may be.
GUess they figure they can protect it with the gazillion software patents they have been churning out, at least in the US. Like the one on organizing photos in chronological order.
I think the implicitly stiff fee is to slow down OSS developers from discovering the undocumented hooks in windows so they can make better windwos emulations.
But in an effort to stop the cloning of the OS...
The question is, why would anyone want to clone Windows?
Maybe - but arrogant little bastards, such as yourself, already beat us to it.
Only if Coke buys 95% of all resteraunts and grocery stores and forces them to quit selling Pepsi.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
No one is forced to use Microsoft software. They offer a product, and if people don't like it, they don't have to use it.
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).
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
comes pre-installed on all hardware
You mean, except for the hardware on which it's not installed. You know, like Macs, or machines pre-sold from large retailers like Wal-Mart, who deliver boxes with Linux installed.
cost-prohibitive terms to the hardware manufacturers against installing a competitor's
How is it prohibitive? Doesn't seem to stop IBM or Dell from gladly selling you Linux-powered machines. It's a couple of mouse clicks to pick and choose your OS when you place an order. Windows? Fine. Prefer Red Hat? Click the other button. Or, I can walk into a retailer a block from my house, and while I have lunch at the place next door, they'll crank out a machine with my choice of motherboards and other pieces running my choice of several distros. For very, very cheap. Or, they'll throw an OEM copy of XP, etc., on there, if that's what I want. At no point does an Enforcer from MS get involved in the transaction.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I think that this is a really good development. I used to *like* windows, until my ship was sunk once i a) connected it to the net (viruses, spyware etc.) and b) saw alternatives in action, and what action it was!
I really hope that this resembelence to Open Source will make a better OS. Maybe a "secure" fork would be nice. It would even be good if it started running across architectures! but, I DO NOT Want it to rule the roost, I'd much prefer a range of OS's... unlike now (unless you count servers).
-- Tinned Tuna
With all the warning about how even looking at the code could cause trouble, I can't help but think of it as MS's version of the Tar Baby http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Shouldn't we hope that it doesn't leak? I don't really know much about it, but I'd imagine that Microsoft has patents and such all over their stuff. If it gets out, and similar looking code appears elsewhere (i.e. in open source code projects), couldn't there be lawsuits and accusations flying everywhere?
That's more than likely.
On the other hand, the goal of the original directive was interoperability, so I guess smart hackers could take a peek at the source to understand how something works and create a new (more or less fully interoperable) solution to the same problem without taking too many risk.
"The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
....I wanna make Notepad version 2....
EXISTING customers who are ALREADY paying for documentation on the Windows server networking protocols will now be allowed to see the source code to the protocols for no additional charge.
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.
Nice to see Britain bashing has replaced America bashing for a moment. As an American I would like to applaud our much maligned Brit for giving us a bit of a reprieve.
The EU is requiring documentation of the protocols. Microsoft is offering the source code.
Traditionally people complain that Free Software is poorly documented. Free Software zealots say "Read the source code." People laugh at them. Reading the source code is a poor substitute for proper documentation of a communication protocol.
Will the EU laugh at Microsoft? Will they rule that Microsoft can provide source code in lieu of documentation provided that they pay compensation to those who must work out the protocol from the source when they have a legal entitlement to documentation?
"Blaw, blaw, blaw, mumbo jumbo, excuse..." Next.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the country in which the company is incorporated, it has been convicted of illegal monopoly conduct, after the *legal* fact of monopoly status was established to the satisfaction of the court. The Webster definition is not relevant. In the context of discussion, it's a strawman.
This creates a huge opportunity for companies to take over supporting legacy operating systems.
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.
There's a good discussion of this going on over at Groklaw, too.
Yes but being illegal if its leaked doesn't stop you from downloading Microsoft Office or Windows off your favorite P2P network / torrent site / usenet ....
However this does bring up a more legite question: "Will Apple have to do the same?" or since darwin is already open source does it matter?
""
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.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Lol, what they are doing is effectively rendering innoperable a monopoly, nothing else, they actually succeed where the US failled, as usual, not surprising americans are jealous and will flood this news with witty comments.
Europe is 'effectively rendering innoperable[sic] a monopoly', by asking Microsoft to release technical documentation on a few server protocols, and Microsoft responding by doing that and also releasing the source code itself for those same protocols, in addition to 500 hours of tech support. And that is 'effectively rendering innoperable[sic] a monopoly'? So then after this, Microsoft will no longer be a monopoly? And all thanks to Europe, because us poor Americans can't do anything right. You guys did a real bang-up job with World War 2 as well, you really showed us up there. It's no wonder that Americans are so jealous of the rest of the world.
...or controlling prices and that is achieved through an exlusive legal privilege (as a governmental grant, charter, patent, or copyright)...
I am no lawer, but whenever I hear about Total Cost of Ownership in Microsoft's FUD, it's always about the initial cost to move your available microsoft infrastructure to your other alternitive (they are always comparing costs in a small window of a year or so...). Given that their formats are encumbered with patents etc and there is no easy way to get your data into the format you want, are they not controling prices this way?
-Nice troll, you must take good care of it...
If thats a question, you obviously have no idea exactly just how crooked these figures are. We do all kinds of idiotic things to get the results that get the baby-kissers re-elected:
And all these measures generally remove quite alot of people who are generally included in the fiigures quoted for other countries. Also, if references another countries figures in relation to ours, they will normally pick the worst figures they can find. Generally, they can normally get away with picking figures that are up to 5 years old (the obviously pick the highest) and the ones that include all kinds of weird crap (ie, if there are a set of figures that will factor in an estimate for people that have probably been missed, they will use those).
UK unemployment figures are wildly inaccurate, and i don't think other countries fudge the figures to the extent we do.
If I had the money and the knowledge to set up one of those internet money pools, I would try to pool together some money so that Codeweavers, or maybe even Cedega can get a copy of the code. I'm sure a this could go a long way to help linux acceptance.
"Britain (the UK) is actually a part of europe. There are in the EU also."
When did this happen?!
My understanding is that previous disclosures of Windows Source typically had "no develop" and "no commercial spinoff" clauses. I.e. you couldn't necessarily use the Windows source to try and make your pay-ware version of $whatever work better.
I think this changes that. Now software companies working on plugsin/whatever for windows will be able to continue working on those things, even after looking at the windows code.
That is a pretty significant change, I think. Previous source offerings were primarily for academic institutions, govt code/assurance audits.
I suppose there have been a few previous Windows source licenses that allowed for product development. Sysinternals, Mainwin, and OpenNT come to mind.. but perhaps these were all US based entities?
Note - i have no specific knowledge of these issues, i am just stating my impression.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
That depends on the licence, which will be as onerous as MS can get away with. MS's position has always been that even if they are forced to comply with opening up their protocols (which they're still fighting tooth and nail) the protocols are strictly for paying corporate licencees, not dirty FOSS hippies.
There's a good Reuters article which just came out which goes into more depth about how MS is wriggling on the hook and how little they have actually given up the fight.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
In addition the basis on which the unemployment figures are calculated changes - almost monthly - and always in a manner that would reduce the figures.
remember Ma Bell?)
Yeah, I lived through that period. Did you? It was an unmitigated disaster. It's a little better now.
How about airline deregulation, though? That worked really well... oops, no THAT was a fucking disaster as well. And we haven't seen any improvement in the airline industry yet.
Fucktard.
The whole point of the EU's interoperability requirement was so that people could build compatible systems. Nobody want's to clone Windows (or at least that isn't an EU requirement). And just because somebody wants to be able to serve files to Windows desktops doesn't mean that they want to steal Microsoft's intellectual property. They just want to be able to support 90+ % of the systems out there. And maybe if MS hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't be forced to allow that. But they did.
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.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Thank you for writing the only semi-intelligent reply to this story so far. Comments like yours are what slashdot should be full of.
i have no idea if it's true but i heard some places only really get access to pieces on the code.... unless there is somebody in house that divides up code to the specific people that need parts of it. i know somebody that tests the software after the engineers molest it and that is how he described it. that may be an in-house decision, but the individuals don't ever have the whole source code available. it seemed inefficient for debugging, but i guess they don't want to mess around.
kind of like the recipe for coca cola or something?
If they will truly open theri ssource code on the streets, we might soon see some 'WindowFixer' websites, sellin windows security patches. That's not the worst of ideas. Actually would somewhat help us, and more people would not-stop using windows, or probably many would use the 'FixedWindows' version... or something.
http://naerey.switch-case.org
What if the Windows clone has fewer bugs, fewer security flaws, runs faster, and is a better quality than Microsoft Windows and sells for a lower price? Can they sell it outside of Europe then?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Bloody Hell...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have the feeling that this product is more and more moving away from the realm of products and into the realm of neccesities. Sooner or later people will want to create products that have the same API as windows (essentialy windows clones). So far they ae not able because M$ is potentialy able to stop them, but when we are talking about an OS that has >90% share, will they be able to keep it up? AT&T had monopoly and lost it also.
This could really backfire on ethical programmers that need trade secret protection.
Just so you know, I'm a Linux fan, and I find Windows to be a substandard, overpriced POS (that ain't code for Pretty Operating System).
The EU has many different operating systems, that probably aren't running windows for gaming purposes. This source code release wouldn't be happening if Microsoft hadn't been spending countless developer hours for years trying to make their product not interoperate with other popular OS's. Comparing these important applications that the EU needs to run a country to writing code for windows games shows you have very little understanding for the nature of this debate.
I'll bet you a shiny new dime that the comments have been stripped out and the variable names have all been changed to misleading names.
[nt]
Wikileaks, no DNS
One million^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hhundred billion dollars. Bwuahahaha. Bwuahahahahahaha. Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha. Haha. Ha.
so whats it going to be 3.1 95 98 98se Me or something relevent today...
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I'm all about the freedom these days.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Nobody uses Microsoft products any more .. they're crap.
Long ago Digital used to provide the source for VMS on Microfiche so that they could comply with government and business security requirements without really giving up control over their OS crown jewels. Looks like this is a similar move by MS. It's similar to a the legal strategy of information overload - dumping tens of thousands of irrelevant documents into the hands of the opposition to force them to waste time and resources looking for that needle hidden in the proverbial haystack.
EU: "Hey, Mr. Corrupt Business Guy, show us how your shit works!"
MS: "Sure, no problem, just buy one of these doozies and be sure to include compensation for our employees and lawyers to continue their illegal practices, your honors. (Please allow 6-8 weeks for delivery of invoice.)"
Words to live by, to be sure. Dolt.
Ummm, I think Microsoft hit this one too late. The Windows source code has already been reverse-engineered, and has been floating around for quite a while. I will reproduce it here for convenience' sake: /* Source Code Windows 2000 */
//if
// if //while
//if /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.1"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.11"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 95"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows NT 3.0"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows 98"); */ /* printf("Welcome to Windows NT 4.0"); */
// while
// main
#include "win31.h"
#include "win95.h"
#include "win98.h"
#include "workst~1.h"
#include "evenmore.h"
#include "oldstuff.h"
#include "billrulz.h"
#include "monopoly.h"
#include "backdoor.h"
#define INSTALL = HARD
char make_prog_look_big(16000000);
void main()
{
while(!CRASHED)
{
display_copyright_message();
display_bill_rules_message();
do_nothing_loop();
if (first_time_installation)
{
make_100_megabyte_swapfile();
do_nothing_loop();
totally_screw_up_HPFS_file_system();
search_and_destroy_the_rest_of-OS2();
make_futile_attempt_to_damage_Linux();
disable_Netscape();
disable_RealPlayer();
disable_Lotus_Products();
hang_system();
}
write_something(anything);
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
do_some_stuff();
if (still_not_crashed)
{
display_copyright_message();
do_nothing_loop();
basically_run_windows_31();
do_nothing_loop();
}
}
if (detect_cache())
disable_cache();
if (fast_cpu())
{
set_wait_states(lots);
set_mouse(speed,very_slow);
set_mouse(action,jumpy);
set_mouse(reaction,sometimes);
}
printf("Welcome to Windows 2000");
if (system_ok())
crash(to_dos_prompt)
else
system_memory = open("a:\swp0001.swp",O_CREATE);
while(something)
{
sleep(5);
get_user_input();
sleep(5);
act_on_user_input();
sleep(5);
}
create_general_protection_fault();
}
That brings a whole new meaning to 'RTFM'
There are many programs designed to be run on Windows. Developers usually only design for this operating system because it is on such a huge percentage of desktops. These programs cannot run on linux, so people have been working on emulators and/or compatability layors to get them to run on linux. Wine is a program that is used by people to run programs on linux, but is not perfect. With the Windows source code, they should be able to get programs to run much better.
There is also a problem with getting peripherals running under linux. You need drivers to get them working on your OS, but usually the company that made the device will only release drivers for it on windows. There are programs like NdisWrapper for getting certain devices to run on linux, that could also profit from having the windows source code.
These have been the main stinky points for Linux.
ReactOS is an operating designed to be fully compatable with windows drivers and programs. They are currently at version 0.2.9.
On the down side, the lack of crackers having the source code to windows means that it is difficult for them to find vulnerabilities. Even with the code secret, Windows has had a lot of problems with security. It has also developed in an enviroment were the only real security vulnerabilities would be ones that can be found without the source code. The type of people who would be interested in getting through windows's security won't mind downloading the source from some warez site. I hope that it isn't leaked to these kinds of people. Fortunatly, they probably won't release the source code of IE(wich is supposedly part of windows)
Another bad thing is you will most likely be hearing a lot of people making comments about how poorly windows is written.
when you purchase the license. So enjoy your free 20 days of support.
Is MS *really* going to comply with this remedy, and its spirit? Or are they just retreating to the next defensible high-ground: The license terms and costs?
Given their past history, they seem more likely to poison the well (with anti-FOSS licensing terms or high license costs) than to comply with the spirit and intent of the ruling. Some are surprised the EU is so patient with a convicted monopolist.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
[spacemky@linuxbox ~]$ diff bsd_tcpip.h ms_tcpip.h
135825a135826
> (C) Microsoft Corporation
hmm...
640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
Innovation (and better management) certainly would've helped, but staggering health care costs and an inflexible union (with leadership very willing to eat its young) would be, by themselves, enough to nearly guarantee that the auto business in this country will soon be toast.
Who at these universities has source code? I'm a CS student at one of the North American universities, and they don't exactly hand out Windows source code on a CD when you declare your major.
Dan Appleman's books document most if not all of the so-called "undocumented-yet-supported APIs". So, in fact, most are undocumented only by Microsoft.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
1. Release sourcecode of obselete Windows version to masses.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!!
I'd like to see what, if any, effect this will have on the WINE development. Last time I checked the application compatibility list, there were several programs that I use that weren't listed. I'd love to see that list continue to grow, then maybe someday I can lose Windoze altogether and go strictly 100% Linux. Oh, to dream...
And they said zombies weren't real!
it's FRIGGING.
actually they give the code to the BS majors so that the CS magors don't get "contaminated" (and its a good way to...)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I doubt the source to xp is going to mean much once they move on to the next version of windows.
Microsoft has either willfully refused to comply with the Commission's order or implicitly admitted that it is incapable of producing proper documentation. Either way, the ball is no longer in their court - it is up to the Commission to remedy the situation. What the Commission should do is license one copy of the code, hire some programmers and technical writers, and produce the documentation itself. They can pay for this out of the fines that Microsoft will be paying for its failure to comply. That way the world gets the documentation, only a small group of people are exposed to Microsoft's code, and Microsoft bears the cost. There's even a benefit to Microsoft in it: they'll find out what their software is supposed to do and be in a better position to test it and debug it.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I'll bet a large percentage of the companies buying licenses are company looking to check for pirated code so they can sue Microsoft. A lot of companies have been waiting a lot of years to get their hands on that code. Unless everyone is wrong and the code is all in house developed it could be opening them up to a lot of lawsuits. It's annoying though that as part of the deal they aren't opening it up to software developers that could benefit from writing software that was more Windows friendly.
1. Christ, you might as well have "shill" tattooed on your forehead.
2. If the U.S. Government says it, it must be true!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
.torrent plz kthx!
Apple sued MS when Windows 1.0 was released. Apple made the mistake of signing a settlement agreement against Windows *version 1.0*, but freed MS from future litigation in succeeding versions.
MS could release the source code to XP - but are there any obligations to FUTURE Windows release? By the time they decide to comply with EU demands, Windows 2006 could be released and that XP source code means nothing.
Gate's father was a lawyer - he learned a lot from him and he's one crafty SOB.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
I must have missed the point where the US and EU legal systems started to defer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for their rulings.
You do realise that Microsoft has been convicted of abusing a monopoly position in both the US and EU, right? You can dance around with definitions from all the dictionaries you want; it doesn't change the facts, chump.
No, it's not.
You've seen the Osbournes? You've been shocked at their unusally high level of swearing?
Don't be - your average Brit swears like a sailor practically every other word.
If the EU require Microsoft to disclose the documentation of the protocols required for interoperability then Microsoft need only disclose the documentation it actually has. If its own programmers fill gaps in the formal documention by consulting the source then the actual documentation is the inadequate formal documentional together with the source.
If the EU require Microsoft to provide documentation Microsoft might need to hire some technical authors and pay fines while those authors write.
In terms of fostering competition, it makes most sense for the EU to require Microsoft to provide documentation. The aim of competition policy is to enable competitors to write competing implementations of the protocols. That is technically easier if there is a specification to work from that is good enough to use directly without having to reverse engineer the original code.
This EU press release gives the impression that if the documentation is inaccurate Microsoft must correct it, and if it is incomplete Microsoft must write some more.
I don't know about you bozos, but what the hell do we really know about the legaleze and liabilities/limitations of this announcement? Are you guys kiddings yourselves? The issue is not whether Microsoft will comply or not or how the information will be licensed or what it will charge. The issue is that a thrice-convicted company's overall strategy is to drag its heels in a balance between being fined at a rate that Microsoft can afford and at a rate that it can not. So, if the fines go up, it 'releases' information. If they go down, it will stop. It's that simple. Now, the other side of the equation is this: who's to say that the documention released will be accurate? There is no compelling reason for Microsoft to publish accurate information. It can simply say that it made a mistake and that, to correct 12,000 pages of information will take ages... and so, drag it out again... If you want to fingure out what's really going on, check out Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200601251 03545406
*** Don't be dull.***
Will they make it public like they did with the windows 98 source?
http://www.siliconglen.com/jokes/windows.html
The EU didn't ask for the main Windows APIs to be opened up, they just asked for some of the networking protocols to be documented for interoperability with other operating systems; even if MS had/have done this properly it wouldn't help duplicate the Windows OS itself much.
MS just won't license enough of the source liberally enough to a company or group that wants to duplicate it independently. The only way this might happen is if in many years from now MS are forced to use an open source business model.
OT: Linux acceptance is already good. The desktop market has and will continue to gradually move away from MS.