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
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Because they are abusing a monoppoly, even simpler because they have a monopoly. Because this monopoly is gained and maintained trough the code they created, don't abuse of your monopoly and drastic measures won't have to be taken.
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.
They aren't forced to do anything. If they don't like the laws in Europe, they are free to trade elsewhere.
More likely though, they will lobby to change the laws because they don't want to lose one of their biggest markets.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
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.
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.
When one of those game developers is a 95% monopoly on home and office computers and their software comes pre-installed on all hardware with cost-prohibitive terms to the hardware manufacturers against installing a competitor's game software, then we'll have a look at the merits of a case against that game developer.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
"Why should any company be forced to reveal their trade secrets?"
Why should any murderer be forced to spend time in prison?
Answer: because they were convicted in a court of law (or, in Microsoft's case, courts) of comitting a crime and are now being punished.
"Is Blizzard going to be forced to reveal their source code so that we can write a better version of Gear?"
Hold off your whining until Blizzard is prosecuted for abusing monopoly powers.
Now I can learn how to create secure bugfree code from the masters.
http://saveie6.com/
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"!!!
You act like it's something new ... just watch any infomercial, or commercial for exercise/kitchen gadgets at 2am:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
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?
If you charge $2.5 million for the code license you can greatly reduce the number of buyers. With some deep buried taging you could even identify which buyer's code was leaked, and then sue them in to oblivion.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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
Did I just see a pig fly by overhead?
Shiny. Let's be bad guys.
I can assure you that the Man Moth is no myth--he is very much a reality.
English is easier said than done.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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?
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.
As I recall it, Microsoft basically incorporated Citrix technology into NT4 for TSE and was going to just shove Citrix in front of the bus, so to speak. Many in the press at the time were calling it a death knell for Citrix even. Citrix managed to negotiate with Microsoft, agreeing to stop selling WinFrame, a fully competitive product, and focus only on MetaFrame, their add-on product. Citrix has managed to survive and flourish; but, make no mistakes, it's not because Microsoft didn't try to cut and run.
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.
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?
Nice try, but officers of a company are protected by something called the Business Judgement Rule. If an officer decides some action (not trading in EU) is warranted (releasing source code might, in his eyes, jeapordize their product), they cannot be punished just because the shareholders disagree with that action. As long as they acted in Good Faith, they are protected - even if the choice was wrong.
They could be ousted by the shareholds and replaced, but they would not be criminally liable.
No one is forced to use Microsoft software.
Wrong, Microsoft strong-armed OEMs into bundling only Windows throughout the 90s, levying special little fines if they dared offer competing products. So technically superior alternatives like OS/2 and BeOS weren't given a fair chance, and consumers never got to try them out.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
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.
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...
You can do that now because of the anti-trust trial, but it doesn't matter because 10 years ago, Microsoft made sure you couldn't do that. This created a monopoly, and all the applications became dependent on the Windows platform, which made the monopoly huge, and competing offerings irrelevant. In other words, you can do that now because competitors are so irrelevant in the face of the monopoly, which was made so huge by preventing those competitors from competing in the first place.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
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.
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.