Posted on 01/25/2006 7:10:50 AM PST by ShadowAce
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) said Wednesday it will license its Windows source code to comply with a European Union antitrust ruling.
The source code provides the building blocks of the operating system that competitors need to make products compatible with Windows.
The company's chief counsel Brad Smith said called the move "a bold stroke."
Microsoft has refused to license the source code in the past. Software developers still will have to pay for the code, which open source advocates will not be allowed to "publish for free," Smith cautioned. The company had "just started to provide this information on both sides on the Atlantic" and regulators "want to see all the details," Smith added.
In March 2004, the EU executive levied a record euro497 million ($613 million) fine against Microsoft, ordered it to share code with rivals and offer an unbundled version of Windows without the Media Player software for what the court saw as an abuse of the company's dominant position in the industry.
Last month, the European Commission threatened to fine Microsoft up to euro2 million ($2.36 million) a day backdated to Dec. 15 for failing to obey, saying the software giant was proving intransigent about sharing data with competitors.
Microsoft has launched a legal challenge that will be heard by the European Court of First Instance on April 24-28. The court - the second-highest in the European Union - stressed that the dates for the hearing were provisional and could still be changed.
Smith told a news conference he was "confident" of winning the case.
Earlier, the EU had repeated its complaints that Microsoft was not complying with its demands.
"Microsoft is not disclosing complete and accurate interface information to allow non-Microsoft workgroup servers to receive full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers," said EU spokesman Jonathan Todd.
He said EU regulators took note that the U.S. Department of Justice was also claiming that Microsoft was failing to provide the technical information asked for in a DOJ settlement.
In December, Microsoft said the EU Commission was trying to undermine its Windows operating system with ever-more-drastic demands for technological transparency, and that it would contest the measure under EU law.
Todd said this was untrue. "We are not moving the goalposts as has been suggested," he said. "We are not changing our demands."
"The Commission's position is that Microsoft is obliged to comply with the remedies imposed in the Commission's March 2004 decision - nothing more, nothing less."
Todd stressed that the final word on whether Microsoft is meeting the terms of the EU antitrust order "rests in the first place with the Commission and not Microsoft."
Microsoft claims the EU demands on opening up its software specifications would also open the door to the cloning of the company's core product, the ubiquitous Windows operating system.
The company has until Feb. 15 to formally answer the complaint. It planned to make a statement to reporters later Tuesday.
Well it was a nice quiet month..
Melt down? Ha, I'm having a huge belly laugh at your hypocrisy being exposed, again. It is terribly funny!
Don't have to, since you endlessly post on the supposed virtues of open source, down to creating your own open source ping list, despite me constantly telling you and others than open source fanatics are typically socialists. Now you want to play the other side of the fence when the socialists raise their ugly head for all to see like these EU bozos. Sorry, doesn't work that way, you made your bed, now lie in it.
Yes because in your world its ok to call someone a hypocrite and not be able to back it up. Talk about a typical leftist tactic!
since you endlessly post on the supposed virtues of open source
And this means I don't think companies should be able to keep their source closed how? I really like fuel efficient vehicles and yet I think its ok for companies to make SUV's.
Long and short of it is you got caught *again* making accusations without being able to back it up!
Think whatever you want, just rest assured your hypocrisy on these subjects will continue to be exposed. And obviously, when I say something, I mean it. You on the other hand seem to specialize in talking out of both sides of your mouth, this being yet another example.
They hypocrisy that you cant find a single example of
in these subjects will continue to be exposed
In order to 'continue' it you might have to first start
And obviously, when I say something, I mean it.
Yes and you have never let a lack of facts get in the way either, impressive..
You on the other hand seem to specialize in talking out of both sides of your mouth, this being yet another example.
Still unable to find somewhere that I actually said companies should be compelled to release source code, its ok just keep pretending you did..
Good move by our European brothers and sisters.
Whatever, open source fanboi, your little games might work on your children but not with me. It's time you start recognizing the dangers of your little obsession, or learn how to better deal with the results.
BTW, I guess you abandoned this thread completely after your last lie there was exposed.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1563930/posts?page=29#29
Some people are just allergic to the truth, obviously.
In any event its was a great two weeks you were gone but I am glad your travels were safe..
knock it off
Does not forum etiquette matter to you, this is crossing threads..
No no no. It's always been about the documentation. MS released some 12,000 pages of specs, but it was inadequate or undecipherable and EUC told MS to go back and rework it. Now MS says 'screw the docs' and dumps a load of source code (for licensing, which means MS gets paid for it) and throws in 500 hours of tech support. This is Microsoft's idea.
I wouldn't want to be a developer who has to look at that code and then find out that I'm "tainted" under the license terms and that I can't work on my project anymore.
I don't necessarily disagree with you but another possibility is that a "court appointed examiners" can leak like a sieve with the possibility that all the source is on the net or is passed along to competitors in a flash.
Were it my source code I think I'd be pretty protective about it. I've never seen it and don't how good/bad it is but it's very probable that access to it would make it much easier to create a clone OS.
For example when I wanted to write an OS for my own use it would have been impractical (probably impossible given my time and skill level) for me to start from scratch so I simply used the source code for Minix as a starting point and started modifying.
heh--don't tell GE or he'd have a conniption.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
