 |
Links: Does EU Microsoft Directive Threaten Open Source? |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Many open source advocates are enjoying a little schadenfreude at the news that Microsoft has been fined by the EU, ordered to strip Windows Media Player from Windows and, more importantly, ordered to provide interoperation information (MS gets EU fine, orders for server info and WMP-free Windows). However, ultratech columnist Dan Gillmor brings alarming news that details of the EU order may ultimately harm open source (Has Microsoft Gotten the EU to Kill Open Source?). Apparently, although Microsoft will have to reveal its interface information so that anyone can write interoperable software, Microsoft could be entitled to remuneration for those who write such software. Commercial software vendors could pay. Open souce cannot. In many ways, this is worse than the current situation where open source developers have to reverse engineer MS interface protocols, but are free to do what they want with them subsequently.
Hopefully, the EU will clarify this point in favor of open source developers. Otherwise, as Samba's Jeremy Allison notes, "this provision is useless as it explicitly excludes one of the few potential competitors Microsoft has, the Free Software/Open Source community."
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Related Links |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Options |
 |
| The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
Cautiously optimistic (Score: 0) by Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 @ 17:32:05 EST | I'm still cautiously optimistic on this front. The EU court has shown little sympathy for Microsoft (and why should they?), and if Microsoft tries to turn around the terms of its punishment to its advantage, then I would expect the courts to remedy that situation. I think we are just too used to the US case, where punishment-turned-assistance is the normal state of affairs for Microsoft. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
Key phrase: selective disclosure on the basis of a (Score: 1) by NZheretic on Saturday, March 27 @ 09:10:32 EST (User Info | Send a Message) http://itheresies.blogspot.com/ | When the EU Competition Commission initiated the lastest investagation against Microsoft in 2001, they included the following in their press release.
DN: IP/01/1232 Date: 30/08/2001 [europa.eu.int] Commission initiates additional proceedings against MicrosoftTo enable alternative server software to interoperate in the prevailing Windows PC and server environment, technical interface information must be known. Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone. The Commission believes that Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to 'talk' with Microsoft's dominant PC and server software products. Microsoft may have done this through a combination of refusing to reveal the relevant technical information, and by engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.
The last statement is very important, since the CIFS file and print services software that the protocol complaint was based on is the GPL'ed SAMBA. I don't believe that Mario Monti, Competition Commissioner, would accept any Licensing from Microsoft for the required information that would be a "friend-enemy" scheme incompatable with the same GPL. |
[ Reply to This ]
|
|
|