Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Source Code Still Not Enough for EU?
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jan 27, 2006 12:24 PM
from the sticking-it-to-them dept.
from the sticking-it-to-them dept.
wjsteele writes "The BBC is reporting that Microsoft's offer to allow rivals access to its software blueprint may not be enough to prevent European Union action." From the article: "Its offer to open up its software blueprints 'underscored its commitment' to meet the European Commission's demands, Horacio Gutierrez associate general counsel for Microsoft Europe said in a statement. However, Brussels has warned the offer may not go far enough. 'It would be premature to conclude that offering access to source codes would necessarily resolve the problem of compliance," said EU anti-trust spokesman Jonathan Todd.'
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Makes EU Dispute Docs Public 227 comments
mjdroner writes "ZDNet is reporting that Microsoft has posted confidential documents used in its defense of European Commission antitrust practices related to server software. Explaining the posting of the documents, which the EC considers confidential, a Microsoft rep said, 'Transparency is vitally important in what can be a very opaque process in Brussels.'"
[+]
Microsoft turns to U.S. for EU Antitrust Help 333 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The NY times reports that Microsoft has asked U.S. goverment officials to intervene on their behalf in the EU antitrust case. The US (through diplomatic channels) has asked the court to be 'fair'." From the article: "Microsoft has complained frequently in recent months that it has been denied the right to a fair defense in the continuing antitrust case with the European Commission. It has also accused the commission of collaborating with its rivals in the software industry and denying it access to what it contends are vital documents it needs to prepare its defense. A memo written by unidentified government officials in Washington stated that Microsoft's complaints raise 'substantial concerns' about the way Microsoft is being treated, according to a person close to the commission who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the memo."
[+]
EU Prepared to Fine Microsoft $2.5 Million Per Day 659 comments
Lord_Slepnir writes "The European Union is unsatisfied with Microsoft's compliance with their anti-trust compliance from 2004, and is preparing to fine them 2 million Euros ($2.5m US) per day until they comply. Under that ruling, Microsoft must open up parts of their operating system to competitors, and change how they bundle Media Player." From the article: "On Monday, Microsoft said it had begun to provide the information Brussels had demanded, but the Commission has signaled the company acted too late. In December, Brussels informed the software giant that it had failed to comply with the original ruling it issued in March 2004."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In other words, "no comment" (Score:4, Interesting)
Call me paranoid... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call me paranoid... (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah,, but the diffrence between sco and microsoft... microsoft is a 800lb gorilla with a bit of $$ to play with
I don't think that's a significant difference, because SCO has not lacked the money to fight with. Lawuits are very expensive, but there comes a point where throwing even more money into the fray doesn't make a difference. I think SCO has spent plenty to reach that level.
I also don't think that the injection of proprietary code into OSS is really a big problem. I mean, if SCO's code really *were* in Linux, all SCO would have to do is point out the parts that were copied and they'd be removed and replaced with clean implementations in short order. The problem with SCO is that they're not really complaining about straight up copyright infringement (not in court, anyway), of which there simply doesn't appear to be any. What they're complaining is that (per SCO's twisted notion of reality) IBM's contract with AT&T means that any IBM code that in any way ever touched any AT&T code became subject to the same restrictions that applied under the contract to the AT&T code. JFS is a good example. IBM wrote JFS for OS/2, then ported it to AIX, then ported it to Linux (starting, I believe, from the OS/2 version, not the AIX version, though that doesn't really matter). SCO says that since JFS was added to AIX, which is based on AT&T code, then JFS cannot be published except under the limitations of IBM's license from AT&T. SCO also believes that many "methods and concepts" from Unix were placed into Linux by IBM, whatever that means. To win, they'll have to identify some "methods and concepts" that were not in BSD, were in system V and were not obvious, and then they have to try to prove that the contract actually supports their assertion that IBM is not allowed to lift methods and concepts from system V. Copyright law certainly doesn't say that, so it's going to have to come from the contract.
I don't see how Microsoft could many any sort of similar complaint. I think Microsoft would be forced to argue straight up copyright infringement, which is much simpler to address.
Parent
Source code is nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
And what is the license that will go with it ?
Re:Source code is nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
And then there's the compiler. It is very possible for Microsoft to have hidden essential parts of their source code into their own proprietary compiler so that the source is not compilable by anyone else. See Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting Trust" [acm.org].
Parent
Vaporcode (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Vaporcode (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Code is not a Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
A standard should be clear, it should be possible to implement any number of ways, as long as the results are the same. Things outside the boundary of the standard should be undefined, not 'Well, if you compile it this way...'
Furthermore, anyone looking at the code has become contanimated by MS IP, and may be constrained from using their knowlege in the future. Standards, documentation, should not limit what people can do. This was designed to open up MS software, in order to allow competition. Not to lessen competition for MS and provide them with a revenue stream.
Re:Code is not a Standard (Score:4, Informative)
Read: Free Software Foundation Europe: "Microsoft offers poisoned apple" - "Praises premature in hindsight" [fsfeurope.org]
Parent
Re:Code is not a Standard (Score:3, Interesting)
This error-prone, time- and resource-consuming and thus won't help much to re-enable fair competition. It's not
Source Code Interoperability Spec (Score:2, Interesting)
What I want to know is this: how do the EU's requirements differ from Window's APIs that are already out there? What exactly are they asking for?
Flamebait (Score:2)
Without being too naive, if it's right then I would come to the conclusion that MS = US. WTF ?
I don't think so, and I thought a site like
Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Upon Microsofts declaration that it selflessly "overfulfilled" the EUs demands someone of the EU stated explicitly that Microsoft has no say in when the demands are fulfilled. The EU has. Right they are.
Someone trying to implement an interface to Microsoft products after seeing Microsoft's "opened up" source-code could face severe legal problems. Heck, even Microsofties are not allowed to even look at free software (be it GPL, MIT or BSD licence).
So I suggest we move along. Nothing interresting to see here... yet.
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
What is the stinking problem? (Score:2)
What does the EU comission really want? Cheap Windows? Crippled Windows?
Can't they just fine them for their monopolistic practices and get over it?
If one is to suggest they move to *X, then EU would complain, well that is too hard, we'd just rather stick with MS.
And you don't need to talk to me about proprietary formats.
I work for a state institution, and let me tell you, proprietary formats are the least of our worries and inefficiencies.
I am also from Europe,
Re:What is the stinking problem? (Score:3, Informative)
If MS has a problem with that, they can take their business elsewhere...
Re:What is the stinking problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Mainly they want full specifications of the protocols and interfaces used in windows by MS, including any "secret" APIs, to be made available on reasonable terms to others. There is also a EUR 500 000 000 fine.
Crippled windows would be of no benefit.
They're not interested in cheap windows directly, but the idea seems that if someone can make "cheap windows" components, they should be able to do so without MS stepping on them (that's what the APIs are for).
Sure, they did. The problem is that the one time fine is only part of their punishment. MS could comply simply by paying EUR 2 million a day forever, but it would be crippling to MS and also not useful in solving the openness problem. Since opening the protocols as the EU is saying is very bad (cheap windows parts) MS does not want to comply. Hence the negotiation going right now.
Maybe you're not getting bitten right now, but proprietary protocols bite whenever you're weak. What are you going to do in a few years if you try to get away from MS apps? I'm getting bitten right now by active directory myself.
I think you really want an OS, a browser, a media player and a text editor. Them coming with the OS is just a convenience, unless it's not the ones you want (like IE) and you cannot remove them. I also like these apps in my machine, but I like a way for me to choose what I want (SUSE and Debian in my case). Anyway, you're using OS X, you're not being precisely locked in. What would you say if you were stuck with outlook and IE?
Parent
Danger Will Robinson! (Score:5, Insightful)
The behaviour of MS in this matter suggests that they do not have proper documentation. If true then it would explain a lot about the quality of MS products.
Open to Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Enlightened Politicians? (Score:3, Insightful)
Woo...Scary..I mean, an enlightened beauracrat? What's the world coming to?
I'm gonna go hide under my bed now...
Microsoft CANNOT comply (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, in order to look at Microsoft's source, you'll probably have to sign away your first born and you might as well give up the idea of ever writing any open source implementaton of anything you figure out from looking at that code or you'll be getting a call from Microsoft's lawyers asking you if you'd like to play a nice game of global thermonuclear war.
Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
MS offered to license the Windows source code.
MS didn't have offer the source code, and the EU is rightly saying that source code sans documentation may not be enough to make interoperability easy.
It's not that source code "Isn't enough". It's communication protocols that they want, mainly. Not piles of source.
Re:Microsoft already provided specs and tech suppo (Score:3, Insightful)
Second of all, even though there is boat loads of it, I doubt the documentation is comprehensive. Note that the DoJ is upset that Microsoft has not released documentation it agreed to do so in the 2001 settlement [ecommercetimes.com]
Furthermore, all avaliable evidence suggests that the Documentation currently offered to the EU is effectively broken [indiadaily.com]
Source Code is not the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
What any developer needs to interoperate with another system is a complete, published, supported interface, which is what the EU ordered Microsoft to deliver. Having the source code to the system may help you to debug your implementation, but in this case it comes at a very stiff cost: exposure to Microsoft's intellectual property. Once a developer looks at that source code, they are contaminated -- Microsoft can come back afterwards and accuse them of taking Microsoft's IP and using it without license. (This applies to commercial developers as well as FOSS developers, but the risk is higher for FOSS).
PJ has a much longer explanation of this over on Groklaw [groklaw.net].
It is not about the source code (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's review the game plan. The EU has (rightly) condemned Microsoft of illegal monopoly practices and is attempting to force Microsoft to behave in a way that creates a more level playing field. This is not about EU vs. US; Microsoft has also been convicted of monopolist behaviour in the US, only it's managed to avoid any penalties for that.
Now, the EU is asking for Microsoft to stop working to create barriers to interoperability. This is a valid approach. Microsoft can make whatever software it likes but it cannot deliberately break interoperability. In case you're wondering why this matters, it's thanks to interoperability that the Internet even exists. Microsoft would like to make products like Samba useless.
It is trying to inject software patents into the picture, by claiming that its standards are "patented". Thus, any open source implementation would infringe.
As an alternative, Microsoft suggests that people can license its source code. Note that this is something MS has been offering to random partners for years, so it's hardly a new step. When asked what the price and conditions for such a license would be, Microsoft said, "we are willing to negotiate".
In other words, Microsoft has not budged an inch and is instead preparing the ground for patenting its interfaces in the EU.
Now we come to the crux of the matter: Microsoft, far from making any concession with respect to the anti-trust accusations, is instead laying the groundwork for an attack on open source competition! This is so blatant and so hostile to the interests of the market that it's quite amazing the Commission is still talking to them, instead of simply levying an appropriate fine.
Open standards are vital to competition, and Microsoft's attempts to quash competition by placing patent bombs into its interfaces, while happily exploiting every other standard on the market, deserve all the abuse they get.
An Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's not enough (Score:5, Interesting)
The EU asked Microsoft to release documentation of their protocols. What MS offers is to license their source to people already using MS products.
But that's not what the EU asked for or what the EU wants.
Even worse, if MS licensed their source to a competitor and that competitor produces a product using some of the protocols used in Windows, MS could sue them for copyright violation.
But it's a clever idea of MS nonetheless, IMHO. Luckily the EU didn't fall for it.
Not enough, since it wasn't requested.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole issue was about an unfair advantage by using their desktop monopoly to push certain software with Windows (such as IE, MediaPlayer so on...)
So I think it's perfectly fine that the E.U. doesn't accept this, as it wasn't part of their requests in the first place. The purpose is to split Windows in parts again so everyone has the same chance of distributing third party software. The opening of the code has nothing to do with it and is just smoke and mirrors tactics by MS.
Spooky twist... (Score:3, Insightful)
Please keep in mind that Europe is a close FRIEND of America and an ally as well.
The ongoing Microsoft issues are related to our individual freedom and compatibility issues with other similar system. No company in the world has any rights to control our freedom, Americans of all people should both understand and appreciate this more than anyone if you look at their history and belief that every individual has rights and that forms our democracy.
While it is perfectly natural for any company to protect their intellectual property - this isnt entirely as easy and straightforward as it might seem in Microsofts case.
I will explain. Imagine that you develop a gadget that
catches on everywhere, people really like your gadget for what it does. As a matter of fact - so much so
Now...Imagine that this gadget not only is super popular amongst everyone, but it can be used for nearly everything as well. It now gets used in critical environments like hospitals, police stations, research and much more. Lets say for arguments sake something goes terribly wrong somewhere...we try to help these poor unfortunates of course being the professional company we are... but for some reason failed to do so. Why that is could be argued to death amongst the victims of this flaw and our company.
Now - again imagine, there is no real competitor to our products and our customers are literally forced to use our products, a dream for any company or an individuals loss of freedom - you decide! Well - nothing is stopping you from developing a similar product, is there? And here is what happens when greed becomes a factor. How safe are you and I really? What if our only competitor turns out a real neath product? Ok - we buy it, but they wont sell - so we make it real hard for them to compete. After all - we OWN the standards for most of our innovations...or those that we have bought from others. But it is fortunately not as straightforward as that - heres where your freedom comes into the picture. If you have been sold a product that enslaves you so much so - that you can no longer control it yourself, you are being deprived of your freedom.
No company in this world should have so much power that it can control nearly everything you do, what you sell and whom you sell it to. Imagine that you owned all telephone cables in the world....and imagine that a million companies where dependent on your cables...and further imagine if they changed the copper to light (fiberglass cables) without asking you because they could. All of a sudden - these million companies would have to RE-invest all of their equipment into newer and different equipment rendering their old stuff useless just because the cable company wanted it. It would KILL small companies and they would not have a living breathing chance of survival because....there is no other cablenet.
Belive me - Europe is NOT evil, we are as hearty and friendly as our American allies, but we dont have to agree about EVERYTHING
Stand and deliver (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all a game. Microsoft don't want to comply if they can avoid it, because they see interoperability as bad for their business. We know that; they know that; and they know we know that. Hence this little charade with thousands of documents and byzantine and no doubt extremely expensive "peak at our code" procedures. Just my 2 cents, but I hope the EU take a tough stance against this attempt to intimidate and manipulate them.
Another stall tactic? (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of the F/OSS folks won't want to touch that for fear of later legal claims of plagiarizing, even if they had the 50K license fees available.
What they were *asked* for, and owe the EU antitrust folks, is a complete protocol spec for others to work from. They don't *want* the source, they don't care; they're quite capable of writing their own code, thanks, if they know what to work to.
Re:When... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:When... (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously; the original decision against MS was to break up the company.
Why was it reversed?
http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,44902,0 0.html [wired.com]
I quote:
In stentorian language seldom heard in discussions of a fellow jurist, the appeals court unanimously condemned Jackson's "rampant disregard for the judiciary's ethical obligations," and said he'd no longer be permitted anywhere near this case.
Remaining silent were Jackson's fans in the Washington es
Re:When... (Score:3, Informative)
Jackson actually is a rock-ribbed conservative, but he doesn't have the pro-business blinders on that his opponents at the Appellate level have. Microsoft was an abusive monopoly that lied to his face and showed his court doctored evidence. The obvious solution under antitrust was to break them up so that the abuses would stop, given that their history in the field and in his court showed that they had no plans to knock it off.
I agree, however, Jackson should NOT have made the comments he did. He was justif
Re:When... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:When... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually people who want to implement theses protocols have to stay away from the source code as much as possible, or they could be accused of copyright infrigment. With this, MS try to prevent people from writing software using the same protocols, which is actually the opposite of
Re:When... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see. Um..Microsoft has been convicted of Anti-Trust practices. I.E standing in the way of fair competition and unfairly abusing their monopoly position. So no. Considering that they already have "an unfair advantage" this ruling is intended to help level the playing field. You can't honestly believe that having any one corporate entity hold the keys to a market as vital as IT is a good thing?
Now if this was a judgement passed on some smaller, peripheral company then I'd agree with you. But it's not. So I don't.
Parent
Re:I don't agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't agree (Score:3, Interesting)
"Want to do business here? Then abide by our laws and terms. We're not forcing you to do anything."
And even if you somehow still think it's unfair for the lawfully elected represtants of the people to bully poor innocent monopoly-convicted private foreign corporations into undoing the devastation of the software-industry then we have different notions of morality.
Re:I don't agree (Score:3, Funny)
Well, then their competitors would be no better off since their chemists have already figured that out, but their customers allergic to those ingredients would sure be better off.
I know a woman who avoids Chinese food because she knows she's allergic to soy, but didn't understand why McDonald's made her sick for years until I found her a reference to their usage of soy. Mind, she's blonde, but still.
Re:What the EU wants (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were capable of making decisions at Microsoft, I would just pull out of Europe completely. Yeah, that's a big hit to the bottom line, but the way things are going now, complying with the EU will mean that eventually Microsoft products will be done away with over there anyway.
And you'd be fired and someone would reverse your decision as quickly as the board of directors could throw together an emergency meeting. Complying with the requirements will make them compete fairly, and they may well slowly l
Re:What the EU wants (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats?
Gee I don't know. They could write better, more efficient code that runs faster, is more secure, and is more reliable. But that is not really the MS way is it?
Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less.
MS, as the first implementor of a standard and as the maker of most of the interoperating softwar
Re:What the EU wants (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if they did, I doubt anyone would ever believe it's possible that Microsoft could write software that is faster and more secure than other competing software.
Yup, MS has developed a very poor reputation. That is one of the things you have to account for if you work in a free market. That is entirely a problem of their own making.
You just said it yourself. And the bottom line is always about money. People are willing to forgive a slower, less-compatible implementation if it's cheaper, or free. Look
Re:What the EU wants (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly is Microsoft supposed to make a better product if they aren't allowed to have trade secrets in the form of protocols or proprietary file formats? A better UI? Anyone can copy a program's UI, and you don't even need spec documents to do that. Lower cost? How do you figure? Someone can just come along and reimplement whatever Microsoft wrote and sell it for less. Why aren't ALL companies doing business in the EU bound by the same rules? After all, I'm sure there are plenty of products that dominate their particular markets, and that just isn't fair!
How about a better implementation?
Do you think Microsoft should go back to making proprietary MSHTML that only renders properly on IE?
Do you think that Microsoft should make a big push for Exchange to be the primary mail system for the internet (as direct competition for SMTP)?
Do you think Microsoft should produce an SMB v5 that is incompatible with everything else, and then push it as a replacement for FTP and HTTP file transfers?
Proprietary file formats and protocols are not the way of the future, my friend. Look to the state of Massachusetts. Proprietary file formats and protocols are a DISASTER for future generations, as well as unfairly hindering superior products in a competitive environment (monopolist barriers to market entry).
Just because a program can read and write an established format doesn't mean that it is equivalent to all programs that can do so. Take HTML editors; HTML is an established, published, public format.
Do you honestly claim that Front Page, GoLive!, Dreamweaver, and MS Word 97 all produce HTML of similar quality, or end user output of similar quality?
What the fuck happened to competing on features and design? Or even gasp security?
Microsoft products routinely beat out superior implementations because of competitive barriers to entry, primarily in the realm of interoperability. Your right; the MS empire is founded on keeping out competing products.
"Windows ain't done till Wordperfect won't run!" Remember that?
It's all well and good to compete like this; build proprietary sets of software all you like, until you have a monopoly. Monopolists have to play under different rules; both EU and US legal structure enshroud this principle. Once your a monopolist, you can't use the same dirty tricks you used to get there. We do this because monopolist profits are an example of a market that is working inefficently; that's basic economics.
Interoperable products do NOT mean that all products are exactly the same. Is Apache =IIS? Is Firefox=IE? Is MS Word 97=Dreamweaver? Is IBM's Workplaces product the same as OpenOffice.org Writer?
No. Not in the least bit. The fact that you think this is the only way in which Microsoft can differentiate itself suggests to me that the existing "ecology" of Windows software is so badly crippled that you can't even understand what a superior implementation might be.
Parent
Re:Does anyone else not have a problem with this.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your totally misinformed.
1. Microsoft is a monopoly.
2. Monopolies exert significant market pressure that distorts competitive landscapes. This means that unless a product is vastly superior to a Microsoft product, Microsoft will win. It makes competing on merit far more difficult.
3. In order to remedy this, the EU has insisted MS supplies interoperability documentation, as interoprability concerns are the PRIMARY
Re:Does anyone else not have a problem with this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best.
Do you have any idea what the point of anti-trust legislation is? It is to remove an unfair business advantage that allows an inferior product to dominate a market, because there is no ability for the customer to choose the competition. They were never asked to give up their intellectual property. They were asked to document their protocols so developers can compete on even ground for making software that works with Windows (since it is wholly unreasonable to expect everyone to switch away from Windows at the same time). They are offering to license their source code as an alternative, and a poor one at that.
Microsoft is not the devil, they do not stifle innovation and the people and organizations who claim they do are either on the loosing end or are just tyring to get a piece of the pie for themselves.
Internet Explorer holds 90% of the browser market. It is a piece of crap. It is insecure, ancient technology that cannot even properly render the six year old specifications it was originally implemented with. The mere fact that it dominate the market has held back internet standards, tabbed browsing, ad blocking and the Web in general for more than half a decade, despite numerous better alternatives is proof enough. As someone who has done fair bit of Web development I assert that anyone who claims MS is not stifling innovation does not know what they are talking about. That does not even count the dozens of other standards they have intentionally corrupted, or the dozens of companies they have bought out or driven out of business using their monopoly. It is awfully hard to sell a product when everyone is already forced to buy your competitor's. You have to be so much better that people will both go out of their way and find another product and pay for it again. This is called "bundling."
If someone out there was better than Microsoft, we would see that.... look at Firefox... it works WONDERFULLY on Windows XP, and its what I use.
Yep, it sure does. Now, ask yourself why is 90% of the market dominated by its inferior competitor? You do realize what MS is doing is illegal, right? And you don't think they should be punished in some way that might discourage them from doing the same thing in the future? Like with media players and antivirus software and every other market they decide to swallow.
I think the people asking Microsoft to "open up Windows" are just admitting defeat.
Here are a couple of facts for you: Most people will never by a stand alone OS. They will just use what is on their computer. There is basically zero possibility of convincing every business and individual to switch to another OS all at once. As a result of this, there is a need for any product to interoperate with Windows in order to gain market share. Unless their are published, implementable specifications for interoperability, this cannot happen and hence MS will always remain in its monopoly position. No one wants the source code. Everyone needs open API's, protocols, and formats. MS was ordered to provide some of the APIs. They have thus far refused and instead are trying to offer to sell, the right to view the source, with restrictions, for an undisclosed price. This is wholly unacceptable.
Rather than worry about "opening up Windows, or decoupling IE from Windows" isn't it time that people start innovating and competing with Microsoft?
That is the problem. You can't compete against a monopoly that bundles what you make. It is not economically feasible and even superior software you create will not win in the market, like Firefox. That is the whole point of the EU rulings, to try to make it possible to compete on even ground.
Parent
Re:No M$ products in the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
God I hope Microsoft does that. Nothing would kickstart OS X and Linux adoption like a full-fledged Microsoft pull out of Europe.
Talk about a wet dream.....
Re:The Same thing (Score:4, Insightful)
EU wants open SPECS, not source code for fee. MS completely missed the request.
Can somebody please mod article as TROLL? Poster of this article is obviously using wrong organ to think.
As it was posted sounds like:
Even source code is not enough for EU, they just want to go on all-out-MS-war, while in reality EU only demands freely accessible readable SPECS.
There was request for readable and freely accesible SPECS, not for source code.
1. Specs MS provided at first were not readable.
2. MS decided to provide code for fee under licence which completely obstructs any way to cooperate with most OSS licenses. Original intention EU was demanded for this one sole purpose which levels the playing field between OSS and MS.
p.s. C'mon
Parent
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Informative)
Are you a complete idiot, intentional obtuse, an MSFT employee, or all of the above?
The EU never, ever asked MS to publish sources. The EU asked MS to provide documentation for interfaces, protocols, and file formats.
MSFT responded by publishing source.
The EU replied that publishing source doesn't necessarily mean that they've complied with the documentation requi
Re:Clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
With regards to the article... let me guess - Microsoft gave them the assembly source files after running their C++ through a pre-processor? :D
Asking for the source code was always going to be a bit dubious... :)
If I were the EU, I'd be pressing for open, *DOCUMENTED* file formats and APIs instead :)
smash.