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.
So what else is new? ;-)
I read further. This wasn't the EU's request, but Microsoft's choice. The EU never asked for code, only documentation. My guess is that Microsoft didn't have the APIs completely documented in the first place, and just thought releasing the code would make it easier to fully comply than combing through the code and documenting everything.
I admit I'm being anal here, but no such thing as above Top Secret, just different compartments within Top Secret. NSA crypto would probably be TS/SCI/SI (Top Secret, Special Compartmented Information, Special Intelligence).
It doesn't address that. This addresses interoperability with third-party products, another part of the antitrust action. And the EU never asked for code, only documentation about the APIs.
Yes, it's almost like projects such as SAMBA don't really exist.
And the EU never asked for code, only documentation about the APIs.
They've asked for code now. Apparently they didn't like the documentation they received back in March.
Yes, you are being anal. The compartments are loosely known as "above ts".
Remember, this action is about what the state was in the 90s. They've done a lot of reverse-engineering since then, and Microsoft has actually become cooperative.
They've asked for code now. Apparently they didn't like the documentation they received back in March.
They didn't think what Microsoft sent was good enough, and requested more complete documentation. Microsoft basically said "You want better documentation? We'll do you one better and give you the code." The EU didn't request code.
And it's still not enough:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4652730.stm
So, do you really dislike Microsoft this much that the Eurosocialists are now the good guys - one of those ends-justify-the-means kind of things?
Maybe colloquially, but not when you work with this stuff.
I do, son, I do.
May not be enough -- they're withholding judgement. Although the tone of the article makes me say "Friggin' socialists, give'em an inch and they take a mile."
It is true that code isn't the end-all of documentation. Anyone who's waded through thousands of lines of another's undocumented code knows what I mean. Still, surely the previous documentation plus the code should be enough for any reasonable person -- but who says the EU is reasonable?
do you really dislike Microsoft this much that the Eurosocialists are now the good guys -
Read my earlier post from before I found out the code production wasn't forced. Anyone should be free to license their code how they want, open or closed, as long as that license doesn't violate law.
So do I, but I've never heard "above TS" from those working with it, only whether you have need to know or are cleared for that compartmentalized info.
"but I've never heard "
So, beause you didn't hear of it it doesn't happen? Let's just drop it. silly argument.
Oh, come on. Let's roll through Sourceforge and start counting up projects where the source code is the only documentation that exists at all. They've got the protocol sources they requested, the API docs they requested, and MS is offering tech support for the folks who have to go through it. How about we just mandate that Microsoft not only provide all this information, but actually write a competing implementation for everyone else to use. Is that zero-effort enough for you?
Which isn't a good thing. Those are projects that are not going to get much participation.
They've got the protocol sources they requested, the API docs they requested, and MS is offering tech support for the folks who have to go through it.
You must read the articles about this. They got some of the API docs they requested, but not enough for them, not enough to completely document the APIs to ensure the ability of programmers to make compatible products. They got the code which they did not request because Microsoft didn't feel like completing the API documentation.
It's not really an argument, it's just that I'm a purist on various things. Poorly indented code is an example, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me. Another is improperly referencing security, despite what the vernacular may be, since it can lead to confusion. I'm kind of a stickler for security and clear rules for communication of sensitive or complex subjects.
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.