Microsoft is FORCED to show their code

[lsutiger]

OK...I am pretty new to the concept of completely free software. I also understand the concept of a business model. For a court to force a company to reveal their 'tricks' is completely ludicrous!
See the article here! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953986/)
Many Linux developers charge for their services and I have no problem with that. They also do not share their source code. I understand that they have to make a living. I just think this is not the right decision.
Please add your input! I would like to know what the consensus is on this subject.

[Adamant1988]

OK...I am pretty new to the concept of completely free software. I also understand the concept of a business model. For a court to force a company to reveal their 'tricks' is completely ludicrous!
See the article here! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953986/)
Many Linux developers charge for their services and I have no problem with that. They also do not share their source code. I understand that they have to make a living. I just think this is not the right decision.
Please add your input! I would like to know what the consensus is on this subject.

Firstly, I would like to point out that Red Hat reveals all of their source code and is a very profitable company. Linux developers charge for their *services* you're right (although I would like you to name an instance of this) and charging for a service is fine. But, if they are releasing under the GPL they *have* to release their source code.

Free software can be very profitable, and it can be a lot of fun as a hobby as well. Traditional selling of boxed sets of software doesn't work well in the open source world is all, you have to be more creative.

[hardyn]

yes... GPL does not jive with classic capitalism... but it does work.
its about the develpment of the science... not purly about money... its adademic in nature, and quite beautiful.

I had to write a paper on Kant's view of Stallmans GPL... i got a good mark on it... i could post it if ya'll were interested.

cheers.

[FoolsGold]

It's not ludicrous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability

In 2004, the European Commission found that Microsoft had abused its market power by deliberately restricting interoperability between Windows PCs and non-Microsoft work group servers. By doing so, Microsoft was able to acquire a dominant market position for work group server operating systems, the heart of corporate IT networks. Microsoft was ordered to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation, which will enable rival vendors to compete on an equal footing (“the interoperability remedy”).

---

Microsoft have been abusing their monopoly for years. Don't feel sorry for them just because the EU have developed the balls to take them to court.

[lsutiger]

IMHO, that is MS's (and believe me I am no MS flag waiver!) business plan. You just don't go out and hand out your business plan to everyone. Thats why certain companies are very profitable. It's all secret.
As far as the Linux companies, Red Hat is one of them. They charge for thier sever business product, just as an example.
Like I said, I am just looking for some discussion here!
:D

[FoolsGold]

IMHO, that is MS's (and believe me I am no MS flag waiver!) business plan. You just don't go out and hand out your business plan to everyone. Thats why certain companies are very profitable. It's all secret.
As far as the Linux companies, Red Hat is one of them. They charge for thier sever business product, just as an example.
Like I said, I am just looking for some discussion here!
:D

Read my post. Microsoft's position is a little different to Red Hat's.

[Nils Olav]

This is a good example of why a commercial OS can't survive under antitrust laws.

[DoctorMO]

Many Linux developers charge for their services and I have no problem with that. They also do not share their source code. I understand that they have to make a living.

No, Linux developers charge for their time to people who want them to do a certain thing or move linux in a certain direction. the difference is that the movement and acceleration costs money not the end result as the end result is GPL anyway.

As for Microsoft, they should be forced to show their specifications but not their code as it's probably isn't very good anyway and code is a second rate specification document anyhow.

People keep on forgetting one very important thing about Microsoft: they're a Monopoly. Now in the UK if your business has over 25% of the market you're considered a monopoly and it's unlikely you'll be given permission to buy up other players and your actions are heavily scrutinised because your 25% market share warps the industry. Now Microsoft has a 90% market share in the desktop computing industry and a 99.8% share of the PC operating systems (as sold boxes and sold pcs pre installed); Microsoft doesn't just warp the industry, it's a black hole that has punched a hole right through space time nothing can escape being crushed by their influence and no business competition could ever survive.

If it was a UK company I'd be calling for the death penalty to whichever stupid moron let this monster form. Government has a duty to protect both people and markets from such forces, consolidation be damned. In this case it's a USA company so I blame the USA regulators and government for this atrocity.

[EdThaSlayer]

The European Union is very strict with Microsoft, probably because its a American company and they don't want to depend on their software(who knows what the CIA does with Windows when they check it for vulnurabilities?).

[hardyn]

as well, i would image they cant get bottled into a proprietary file format in the event of a software companies demise.

when you have the countries records encrypted into a .doc or something like that, and your software company goes under, you have to be able to migrate that data to another application.

[Bigbluecat]

Microsoft model is a proprietary one and where possible they seem to try to extend or modify standards in order to make it difficult to change to another solution (IE as an example).

MS Office is a little different. It was simply miles ahead of the competition and became the defacto standard. However, now people and governments are getting worried about losing control of their documents and especially about what happens if Microsoft arbitrarily decide to change the format.

So their model is one of high R&D spend requiring large volumes and returns and to try to ensure that they try to make it "not easy" to move to another solution. Of course this is coupled with the normal company behaviour of simply trying to make the best product they can so the people choose their product. Sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't.

Linux and open source is different. Open source is a development methodology. One of the simple facts that many people forget about open source is that it reduces a companies R&D spend. The development can be spread through the community and in particular the validation and test phase which is on of the most expensive parts of software development can be significantly reduced.

This is a particular part of Red Hat's desktop model where they release Fedora to the open community. The community shakes it down and helps fix everything and then it rolls out to enterprise customers alongside a service and maintenance deal.

Both Red Hat and Microsoft are businesses. Both are capitalist. Both a viable business approaches.

The EU is objecting to Microsoft abusing it's market dominance position and acting in an anti-competitive way (as Microsoft had already been judged to do by US courts several years ago). Microsoft have exacerbated the situation by not complying with the rulings. It is an interesting drama to watch from the sidelines.

[cantormath]

OK...I am pretty new to the concept of completely free software. I also understand the concept of a business model. For a court to force a company to reveal their 'tricks' is completely ludicrous!
See the article here! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953986/)
Many Linux developers charge for their services and I have no problem with that. They also do not share their source code. I understand that they have to make a living. I just think this is not the right decision.
Please add your input! I would like to know what the consensus is on this subject.

we dont actually want to see MicroSofts code. We just think if they are gonna say that the linux community is guilty of copyright infringment, they should have to show there code.........meaning there are probably a load of copyright issues once could think of looking at there code.

We have our own code.....and microsoft is afraid of it.....

[koshatnik]

The European Union is very strict with Microsoft, probably because its a American company and they don't want to depend on their software(who knows what the CIA does with Windows when they check it for vulnurabilities?).

Err, no. The European Union doesn't tolerate monopolies and corporate bullying, end of. In America, maybe that sort of business practice is acceptable. But not here in Europe. And that's a good thing.

And please, this crap about MS has a right to protect its business plan etc etc, is ridiculous. A business and its products should stand or fall on how good they are as products and how well the company supports that product, not on purposely shutting out competition and driving competitors to bankruptcy. Do you see the difference now?

[Mathiasdm]

OK...I am pretty new to the concept of completely free software. I also understand the concept of a business model. For a court to force a company to reveal their 'tricks' is completely ludicrous!
See the article here! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17953986/)
Many Linux developers charge for their services and I have no problem with that. They also do not share their source code. I understand that they have to make a living. I just think this is not the right decision.
Please add your input! I would like to know what the consensus is on this subject.
They're not forced to hand over source code. They just need to give the API's.
It's an entirely different thing.

[Spr0k3t]

And please, this crap about MS has a right to protect its business plan etc etc, is ridiculous. A business and its products should stand or fall on how good they are as products and how well the company supports that product, not on purposely shutting out competition and driving competitors to bankruptcy. Do you see the difference now?

Werd

[Bavo]

Nobody ever asked Microsoft for source code, they don't even want their code. What they are asking is complete and correct documentation of their API's.

The reason that they are doing this is that other players on the market get a chance to get some market share. A nice example is their smb-API, the SAMBA guys already did a great work reverse engineering it, but if documentation of the MS implementation were available, SAMBA could get 100% compatible with MS.

The news here is't the fact that MS has to create and make the necessary documentation available, the news is the fact that they will only be allowed to ask a small fee for it. And that is their own fault!
In the original court ruling the EU decided that MS could decide how much they would charge for the documentation, but the royalties they suggested were way to much for the EU, so the EU has decided that, according to the article, they will have to give the documentation for next to nothing.

You should also note that this is an article from Mircosofts own network.

[use a name]

This is a good example of why a commercial OS can't survive under antitrust laws.

MS has been sabotaging interoperability. It's the interface specs that have to be shown. This way, their OS will have to be viable by its own and not because they own...

[Tachyon_]

I had to write a paper on Kant's view of Stallmans GPL... i got a good mark on it... i could post it if ya'll were interested.

I take you're meaning Immanuel Kant, can't figure anything else, they're actually quite similar if you look at their history in wikipedia.
"You have the responsibility to share your source code with your neighbor and never treat a human being as a mindless coder."

Anyway, I'd be interested, I had to write a philosophy essay on something relevant. I didn't go that far but now when you mention it, it would be a great idea! I got a best grade -it was like 29 pages done in 50hours-, but the subject was much more boring than yours, some problems of metaphysics.

[samjh]

Business is business, but there are rules that govern how businesses should conduct themselves in their dealings with consumers, clients, partners, and even competitors.

One set of such rules are anti-trust laws.

Capitalism is successful because it promotes progress by competition. Businesses try to out-do each other using combination of superior products or superior services. But if a business tries to compete on other grounds, then those alternative methods need to be scrutinised.

Microsoft was once a company driven by innovation, producing technically superior products to their rivals. Sometimes they lost, more often than not, they won. Microsoft became dominant by developing superior products. But once they reached the top of the software food-chain, they got lazy, greedy, and began to use business strategies and tactics that were dubious.

The EU ruling is a response to one of those dubious strategies, where Microsoft is using its market dominance to shut out competitors from competing in the same market. The key issue is how they are preventing competitors from competing. They are using proprietary technologies with no disclosure about how to work with the technologies, and abusing laws to prevent competitors from researching how to work with or defeat the technologies. If a very minor company did that, it won't be a big issue, since the minor company has too little market share to have great impact. But for a major company like Microsoft, they are literally locking down big chunks (in this case, most of) the market. That is not only preventing competitors from competing, but also severely reducing options for alternative products for consumers.

Microsoft is not only anti-competitive, but also anti-consumer. The EU ruling is an attempt to thwart that type of practice by forcing Microsoft to allow competitors to develop products that can work with Microsoft's own. The EU ruling gives more freedom to the market. That will help to increase alternative options for consumers, as well as fostering better competition.

As an aside, Microsoft is not being forced to show the code to the world. They are only expected to make publically-available APIs that will work with their proprietary technologies. I think the EU parliament or judiciary is the only body to which Microsoft has to release actual source code.

[salsafyren]

I think this ruling is fine.

The EU should demand that open standards or open specifications are used everywhere where the government has an interest. The governments are heavily dependent on Microsoft technology and this has to change.

I can't figure out why the IT industry is so reluctant to change. Imagine a market for cars where one company had 90%. That wouldn't be healthy for anyone. Why should IT be different?

We demand a free market and EU has a right to require these specifications.

I don't want to see Microsoft crushed. I just want a market which has fair competition and where the consumer or governments are not forced to one standard.

[Bloodfen Razormaw]

Windows code has been available under a shared source license for a very long time.

[salsafyren]

Windows code has been available under a shared source license for a very long time.

What is your point?

Shared source is only available to selected customers, and only some of the Windows source is available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source

[rai4shu2]

OP is misleading. Here is what the article ACTUALLY says:


The group is required to license the technical information to competing groups under the terms of the European Commission's antitrust ruling issued three years ago.

Nowhere does it even mention MS source code, which is *partially* availabe to those who don't mind signing draconian NDAs.

[jiminycricket]

(this is a bump of a threee-week old thread) OP: this MSNBC article is complete crap. (But remember, MSNBC = Microsoft + NBC and so you see why.) It's what Microsoft would like the public to believe, so that they have to keep buying Windows Longhorn + Vista boxes instead of Mac or Linux boxes. As a monopoly, Microsoft is using it's 90% Windows client marketshare to push into the server space, and they are succeeding. Antitrust laws prevent this from happening to protect the consumer from high prices and lack of innovatoin, and sharing the info that Samba would otherwise have to pain-stakingly reverse engineer to even COMMUNICATE with the servers is part of the remedy for a convicted, harmful illegal monopolist like Microsoft. Remember that they were supposed to share this info in an acceptable manner since 2004's ruling, and they still haven't met those grounds. MS offered these specs at outrageous licensing, wanting 5% of total revenues (completely unprecendented and completely greedy-- it seems MS wants monopolies to be able to profit off their illegal activity...)

Here's an article with Andrew Tridgell showing that : http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2006042816483566 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006042720154818 It also tells how Microsoft used to help out Samba when they weren't interested in the server market, but then suddenly stopped helping them.


"Businesses and public authorities have to pay prices that are kept high by Microsoft's refusal to share interoperability information with its competitors, as is common practice in the industry," explains Andrew Tridgell, president and founder of the Samba Team in his presentation on behalf of Free Software Foundation Europe in European Court today. Yesterday, Microsoft stated that it had spent 35 thousand person-hours on documenting that kind of information - and essentially failed.

Tridgell continues "Microsoft keeps claiming that it was asked to show its source code to competitors, which is absurd. We are exclusively interested in industry-standard interoperability information, such as Interface Definition Language (IDL) files commonly used for these kind of protocols. By our reverse-engineering, we were able to conclude that the total Active Directory description would amount to roughly 30.000 lines, of which the admittedly best experts of the Samba Team were able to reverse-engineer 13.000 over the course of six years. These IDL files easily fit on a single floppy disk and would go a long way towards providing the interoperability information requested."

"If Microsoft had shared that information when the Commission first requested it, customers could already find small embedded devices in stores for around 100 EUR that could offer the Active Directory functionality implemented in Samba - Microsoft's implementation of these protocols has hardware requirements ten times bigger. Think of a small box the size of a router, compared to an entire PC," Carlo Piana, FSFE'S lawyer on the case continues.

"The prevention of competition by Microsoft to leverage their desktop monopoly into other areas imposes a stark price on all professional computer users. Are we really to believe that Microsoft has no idea what is running on 90% of the computers around this planet so they have to call in their retired engineers to explain to them the working of Windows XP?" Georg Greve, president of FSFE summarises. "Enough is enough. Microsoft should stop playing games with the Commission and the Court and leave the field of innovation of obstacles to competition and freedom of choice!"

[mech7]

As far as i know MS only needs to open up it's API and Protocol in some parts because now they have an unfair advantage over other software companies who try to develop for their system.

[Tomosaur]

It's not about getting Microsoft to show their 'tricks'. Microsoft have been accused of deliberately causing interoperability and thus abusing their market share to force other companies out of business - thus creating a monopoly. There is no law preventing a 'natural monopoly', but Microsoft's monopoly is brought about by severely underhanded tactics - they force competition out of the picture not by having a superior product, but by preventing the competition's software from working correctly.