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?
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.
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.
Yeah, I can see it now. People flocking en masse to fix the holes, and pay for the privilege!
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.
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.
"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/
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.
yea but once you have access to the source, they can come after you for copying their implementation. As a developer I find this push to release the windows source sort of strange. We need proper documentation not source code, if something is broken we can point to the manual and have it corrected, instead of following the broken implementation in the source only to find it "fixed" in another version of the os and breaking compatibility.
did you forget to take your meds?
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?
And you know what that is? Love... MS takes cares that each copy of the windows code has that special touch that makes the code seem likes it got freshly out of your mom's computer.
Windows, now with something special(TM).
Available to you for only an unspecified amount of money.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
""
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?
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.
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...