| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Goes Beyond EU Decision by Offering Windows Source Code | |
|
||
| Time: 12:55 EST/17:55 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Today, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith announced Microsoft’s decision to license all the Windows Server source code for the technologies covered by the European Commission’s Decision of March 2004. The company is making this voluntary move in order to address categorically all of the issues raised by the Commission’s December 22, 2005 Statement of Objections. That document asserted that Microsoft’s prior technical documentation provided insufficient information to enable licensees to implement successfully certain Windows Server communications protocols. “Today we are putting our most valuable intellectual property on the table so we can put technical compliance issues to rest and move forward with a serious discussion about the substance of this case,” said Brad Smith, Microsoft Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The Windows source code is the ultimate documentation of Windows Server technologies. With this step our goal is to resolve all questions about the sufficiency of our technical documentation.” With today’s announcement, Microsoft is going far beyond the European Commission’s March 2004 decision and its legal obligations to provide companies with the technical specifications of its proprietary communications protocols. A reference license to the Windows Server source code will provide software developers the most precise and authoritative description possible of the Windows protocol technologies. With it, software developers will be entitled to view the Windows source code in order to better understand how to develop products that interoperate with Windows, but not to copy Microsoft’s source code. “We have now come to the conclusion that the only way to be certain of satisfying the Commission’s demands is to go beyond the 2004 Decision and offer a license to the source code of the Windows server operating system,” said Smith. “While we are confident that we are presently in full compliance with the Decision we wish to dispel any notion that Microsoft’s technical documents are insufficient.”
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:42:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2006 1:42:56 PM |
|
Nice spin, as usual from MS. Groklaw has an interesting rebuttal here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060125103545406 |
| #2 By 8273 (131.107.0.72) at 1/25/2006 2:46:19 PM |
| #1, because anything said by the OSS community is true, correct, and cannot be challenged. So if Groklaw disapproves, then MS must be wrong. |
| #3 By 1658 (67.183.205.175) at 1/25/2006 2:52:52 PM |
|
Eh, forget it. This post was edited by aamendala on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 at 14:57. |
| #4 By 23603 (70.82.83.103) at 1/25/2006 3:12:43 PM |
|
This is really a sad day...
Anyone who is they will provide Vista code also?? |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2006 3:55:27 PM |
| #2: This is yet another example of MS' non-compliance. They will do or say anything to keep OSS devs from interoperating with Windows. Now they're lying about not having any decent API doc, so they'll pretend to comply by offering source code no one asked for with a (no doubt) high license fee. How is that helpful? If the doc they did provide was so inadequate that nobody could make sense of it, how are devs supposed to work with a mishmash of raw source? And their 'dog ate my homework' excuse about not being able to find good people to document the code is pathetic. I hope that both the US and EU bring the hammer down hard. |
| #6 By 531 (66.171.174.239) at 1/26/2006 11:39:15 AM |
|
#5: And why should the open source crowd expect to get anything for free (or cheap)? Microsoft wrote that code on it's own dime - why should they be expected to make sure that some dork in his garage can see their code because he chooses to work on "free" software?
That's OSS's problem - not Microsoft's. They shouldn't expect everyone else to be commies just because they are. This post was edited by mikekol on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 11:42. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/26/2006 11:48:14 AM |
|
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=49190&DisplayTab=Article
#6: Maybe because they were ordered to do so? When MS was ordered to make certain server APIs available to competitors to help them better interoperate with Windows, that includes all competitors - even open source developers and companies. Not to do so is anti-competitive when you have a monopoly, and that behaviour is illegal in the US and EU. Yes, it would be nice if your favourite companies were allowed to ignore laws that are either inconvenient to them or threaten their stranglehold on the market, but that's not how the world works. This post was edited by Latch on Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 11:50. |
| #8 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/26/2006 12:03:37 PM |
| OSS = Whiners and Freeloaders who like to steal other peoples ideas becasue they are too busy whining to come up with their own. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/26/2006 1:41:05 PM |
| #8: Quiet, Parkkker. Adults are talking. |
| #10 By 8273 (131.107.0.104) at 1/26/2006 2:19:32 PM |
|
Latch, from groklaw:
Let me get this straight. The EU Commission orders Microsoft to hand over clear documentation. They hand over documentation, but it's incomprehensible, so no one can follow it. The EU Commission threatens to fine Microsoft $2.4 million every day until it complies, so instead of complying, Microsoft throws some code on the table and says, figure it out yourself. No documentation. For a fee. Have I got that right? Microsoft provided the documentation, but it was "incomprehensible". Why was it "incomprehensible"? Was it because the document was poorly written, or was it because the users of that documentation were incompetent? It cannot be that they were incompetent, because anybody in the computer industry (unless you work for Microsoft) is a genius, correct? Because the average person off the street could not make sense of the documentation, Microsoft is evil and not conforming to the EU dictatorial decree. And how do we know who could not understand the documentation. Was it a educated computer developer, a high school script kiddie, some random person off the street, or was it somebody in the EU legal system who only browses the web, and because they could not understand the docs, it must be that Microsoft is covering up something. Or was it the Groklaw “lawyers”? How educated are they? Have they seen the code to make the judgement that it was incomprehensible? Were they looking at the code with objectiveness? Were they relying upon 3rd parties to tell them about the sources – if they are, then the information was in violation of the documentation license agreement and hearsay, which even a paralegal would know is not valid in legal arguments. They leave out ***a lot*** of information, but we are supposed to take them at their word simply because they wrote the article and made the claim that it must be Microsoft at fault? But lawyers or ones pretending to be – the owner of the Groklaw site says that he/she is only a paralegal, never lie, correct? But let’s look at the fact that Microsoft is opening up their code. If I were to throw a copy of the Linux sources down in front of anybody, even if they never saw the code before, they could easily make modifications to that code in no time flat to add new features, recognize any possible security holes, fix them in a way that will not break existing applications and have it ready within 15 minutes – at least that is what the open source community wants you to believe. So why is it that releasing the source code to Windows is not the same? Is the source code to Windows less comprehensible than the Linux source code? If the people who use Linux are as smart as they claim to be, then they should have no problem reading the code. So it must be something else. Why is it that if you are looking at Linux code it is so easy to understand, but looking at code that nobody outside of Microsoft has seen is “incomprehensible” and cannot be used? |
| #11 By 531 (131.107.0.72) at 1/26/2006 2:58:38 PM |
| Latch - ... which is precisely why the "judgement" is being appealed. It's rediculous to think that a company would have to give away intellectual property as a punishment. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/26/2006 3:50:45 PM |
|
#10: I have no idea on what basis the doc was considered by be unacceptable, having never seen them myself. However, I had heard previously the same thing that Groklaw reported, that the docs were incomplete and unusable. As far as I know, MS doesn't just drop this doc blob on anyone who knocks on their door, so I doubt it was some script kiddie.
As for it's not the same if MS shows code, that would be because MS code is proprietary and under NDA, whereas F/OSS code is not. Once you have looked at MS' code, you are tainted. OSS developers cannot look at MS code. MS knows this and this is why they are refusing to give up good API doc as ordered by the courts and are trying to substitute source code instead. They don't give a damn if Sun or Symantec etc look at the code. They care very much that F/OSS does not become more interoperable with Windows as that might break the Windows monoculture and let companies use a mix of F/OSS and Windows more than they already do now. #11: MS is appealing the decision because they appeal every decision that doesn't go their way, much like every other company that doesn't get the outcome they wanted. This does not mean that they got screwed. |
| #13 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 1/26/2006 5:26:49 PM |
|
Gentlemen,
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, the windows source code is incomprehensible? I have read that the reason that Vista took so long to get out the door was because the source code was too big for even MS to handle. According to at least one report the lead software architect of the Vista convinced Gates to scrap the old Windows code for a Linux model because of its complexity and inability to insure security. |
| #14 By 32132 (64.180.41.62) at 1/26/2006 5:38:00 PM |
|
Latch. You aren't an adult. You are a whiner.
All this whining and snivelling is because the Microsoft FAT patents were upheld, and OSS fanatics don't want to pay royalties. They want to steal Microsofts hard work that went into developing their API's and software. Its pathetically funny that OSS tries to smear Microsoft software every chance they get, but how they whine and snivel becasue they can't figure out how to leach onto it. |
| #15 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2006 10:10:09 AM |
| #14: You're embarrassing, Parkkker. Do you know that? |
| #16 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 1/27/2006 11:50:08 AM |
|
#15 Name me 5 things OSS has truly invented without leaching off other peoples ideas?
4? 3? 2? 1? |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2006 2:04:00 PM |
| #16: How is that relevant to anything? I could ask the same of MS, Mr Pot. Almost everything is built from what came before it, either a product or paradigm. This discussion is about MS and the EU orders they're ignoring. Try to focus, Parkkker. |
| #18 By 23278 (24.147.235.53) at 1/27/2006 3:21:27 PM |
| I think this discussion should be about EU doing whatever is best for Open Source. This would be like the US telling Japanese car makers that they have to disclose how they make their cars so that American companies can make better car parts for them. |
| #19 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 1/27/2006 3:33:15 PM |
|
The EU is trying to get Microsoft to give away its IP to OSS leaches for the crime of bundling a media player in XP.
So far, not one copy of the EUnuch Edition of XP has been sold. Consumers have voted. The EU are morons. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/27/2006 3:41:46 PM |
|
Sigh. This is about giving choice back to the marketplace. This isn't about open source. #18, your analogy would be apt if the Japanese were the only ones making cars for the world, and only Japanese parts would work with them. They would have a global monopoly on car-making and service. And you know what? They wouldn't be cheap beacuse of their monopoly. However, if we allowed others to get in on the action, that would spur competition, which in turn would spur innovation and price reduction -- all pluses for the consumer.
|
| #21 By 23278 (24.147.235.53) at 1/27/2006 4:44:06 PM |
| Latch, the point wasn't really that other people can't make cars, for one, it's that other people can't make generic car parts for Honda because they keep all the blue prints a secret. For two, there are other computer choices out there and for the average user a Mac would be fine, linux would be fine, but they don't choose those OS's. For three, the EU is only doing what's best for OSS because of they have dumped enough money and support into it and it wasn't making any difference. Now they have to come up with new reasons to give OSS an unfair advantage. If other OS's want to catch Microsoft they should do it with their own money, not money that Microsoft has to pay through fines. |
| #22 By 12071 (203.217.48.162) at 1/27/2006 11:29:18 PM |
|
I swear that it seems the closer your lips are to MS backside the harder it is for you to comprehend simple things. For those of you who still believe that "they" (insert OSS, EU, democrats, or whoever else you don't like or are threatened by and hence need to criticise first) want Microsoft to give out their source code read the next sentence very carefully, in fact, re-read it several times to make sure you get it:
No-one asked Microsoft to give out their source code. No-one wants Microsoft to give out their source code.No-one wants to see Microsoft's source code. Keep reading it over and over until it finally sinks in otherwise we'll be arguing until the cows come home. What the EU asked for was Microsoft to release the full, complete (as in 100% not whatever definition you and Microsoft want to use) specifications to their API's and protocols. Go here to read up what an API is and what it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API No-one cares how Microsoft chose to implement their specification, they just want the details so that they can implement the same specification and interoperate with Windows. Think of TCP/IP as an example - the EU isn't asking for several pages of source code, they simply want the specification. Microsoft handed the EU some documentation which the EU said was incomplete and well they basically said it was crap... just a lot more diplomatically and asked Microsoft to conform with their original order. Microsoft turned around and said bugger it... here's all the source code, you work out the specifications on your own.. oh and yeah, we'll charge you for it! So either Microsoft are playing a game, or they really don't have all their API's documented! By having all the specifications available it helps everyone who wants to write software to interoperate with Windows, it is by no means limited to OSS. #20 You forgot that the Japanese would then have to be found guilty in two different courts, in two different continents of illegally abusing their monopoly - then being ordered to provide other auto manufacturers with the specifications of all the I/O ports etc and instead of listening to the order they came back and said... here you go, the full specifications to our vehicles... but they'll cost you $xxxxxxxxxxx to take a look at... and we'll sue you as soon as your first product comes out as you've obviously been influenced by our designs. |
| #23 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/28/2006 12:40:45 AM |
|
Back from the dead, here...
I really wish the EU's case against Microsoft were based upon a sincere disagreement regarding the fundamental philosophies regarding property - one could respect that. It isn't. The EU's case against Microsoft is only one part of a larger effort to blunt US hagemony. "The reluctant empire" and its people - America and its citizens, simply do not see themselves in the same way European leaders do - many nostalgic for empires they never quite had. It is interesting, ironic and sad. It would take weeks to express even a modest argument supporitng this observation, but at least the sad part can be summarized more easily. We tend to consider issues with a singularity of focus - restricting ourselves to that which we are comfortable. This behavior illustrates our desire "to be left alone and at peace" and our recognition that we really ought to extend the same to others. Just as large and powerful men being subconsiously aware of their strength restrain themselves and are much slower to be provoked into using force, we tend to restrain ourselves as a people...right up until someone treats our kid sister in an unkind way..."Katie bar the door..." The EU looks at Microsoft and see's intent, malice and predation. Mr. Ballmer, Mr. Gates, Microsoft employees and most Americans wake up wanting to be great Dads, terrific Moms and be known for doing great work - they wake up wanting to matter and make a difference. Their work and collective aspiration translates into great success, moon landings, little robots wondering around nearby planets, tons of money and yes, really, really, really big fleet aircraft carriers - and many of them. Simply, Americans aspire. Sure, they fail...often and big, but they still get up, dust off and try again and again and again. Owning property is burned into an American's DNA. Challenge any one entity's right to property is a challenge to all. European and EU leadership cannot conceive of this - that despite individualism in the extreme, there can be near universal core values present amongst such a diverse group of people. Ideals that are as natural as breathing to Americans are completely alien to and absent from the minds of Europeans. After 14 years living in 4 European countries and speaking 4 of their languages, I was always astonished at how universally common it was for European peoples to simply accept whatever hand circumstance seemed to have dealt them. The courageous, inventive, curious, and bold among them went to America - by any means. An astonishing percentage of US combat personal are foreign born - more of the courageous paying a terrible, but acceptable price for the chance to "matter" and have their children born in America. Neither monopoly or greed, or even wild good fortune created Microsoft, or American hegemony - a people who aspired to simply "matter" did. It is amazingly simple - just as Kerry opined, "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot..." Man, it was so simple, he lost to one who wanted to matter and wanted others to want to matter, and that is more than compelling, it is irresistable. Americans hate to be wrong - not because they are really that full of pride, but because despite every aspirational instinct they always think they should have done more. The danger to the EU and its potential interests in software do not come from Microsoft including rich media capabilities in its operating systems - it will come the second the EU is unkind to Microsoft's kid sister - the users of its products. "Katie bar the door..." |
| #24 By 12071 (203.217.48.162) at 1/28/2006 2:31:18 AM |
| Christ almighty... with such propoganda it's probably better off that you "stay dead" like you've mentioned so many times. Trust a "proud American" like yourself to turn this into a EU vs US issue, after all it's easy to try and make everything black and white and then just criticise the half you disagree with. Nevermind that this has nothing to do with EU vs US, nevermind that the US first took Microsoft to court several years ago, nevermind that America, in it's current state, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Europeans - let's ignore all of that! Those things get in the way of us being able to sh!t on the EU and spread our propaganda! After all, American's are always right, how dare any other country think differently... even if they have had 2000+ years more history and lessons to shape it and it's people a certain way! The whole world should follow America's goals, values and laws! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:42:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
