Microsoft Offers to License Some Code for a Fee in Lieu of Documentation Re: [Fsf-friends] Microsoft to give access to code

[Krishna Pagadala]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060125103545406

"Joachim Jacobs, spokesperson for the Free Software Foundation Europe  writes in his first reaction that the EUC has demanded that the   protocols should be accessible. However, MS wants to license the code.   Nobody has asked for that, and if it happens, developers can be   vulnerable to infringing copyright because they might have had   access to the source code."


james mathew <james.infidel at gmail.com> wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4649348.stm
*Microsoft has said it will allow rival software companies access to license
parts of the source code for its Windows operating system.*

The concession was made in response to a 2004 European Commission anti-trust
ruling, which ordered the company to be more open to competitors' needs.

It came three weeks ahead of the EU's compliance deadline, which threatened
fines of 2m euros (�1.4m; $2.4m) a day.

The commission said it was not sure the offer would help resolve the
dispute.

Microsoft's legal chief, Brad Smith insisted "the source code is the
ultimate documentation.

"It should have the answer to any questions that remain."

But competition commissioner Neelie Kroes disagreed.

"Normally speaking, the source code is not the ultimate documentation of
anything," she said.

"[This is] precisely the reason why programmers are required to provide
comprehensive documentation to go along with their source code."

*Needle in a haystack*

Microsoft said the code will help rivals make their software compatible with
its own.

"We will ... license the Windows source code itself," said Mr Smith.

"Today we are putting our most valuable intellectual property on the table
so we can put technical compliance issues to rest and move forward with a
serious discussion about the substance of the case."

Rivals were not impressed.

"Even the most sophisticated software engineers would be lost," said Thomas
Vinje, a lawyer who represents some Microsoft opponents, dismissing
Microsoft's move as a PR stunt.

"They would dump millions of lines of code and finding what competitors need
to interoperate would be like looking for a needle in a haystack."

*Record fine*

The compliance deadline was set in December when the European Commission
said that Microsoft's offer of 12,000 pages of documentation and 500 hours
of free technical support was not adequate.

The landmark 2004 ruling said the world's biggest software company was
guilty of abusing its position and hit Microsoft with a record 497m euros
fine, telling it to open up its operating systems.

Microsoft said that the latest concession went "far beyond" the 2004
decision.

It maintains that it has tried to comply with the EU's demands, but says
that Brussels keeps changing its guidelines.

The EU's second highest court, the European Court of First Instance, will
hear Microsoft's appeal against the 2004 ruling in April.




--


"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is is neither able nor willing, Then why call him GOD??"
_______________________________________________
Fsf-friends mailing list
Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in
http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends




=====================================
To Reflect, to Inspire and to Empower
http://www.employees.org/~krishnap/

    The great moral question of the twenty-first century is: If all knowledge, all culture, all art, all useful information, can be costlessly given to everyone at the same price that it is given to anyone -- if everyone can have everything, everywhere, all the time, why is it ever moral to exclude anyone from anything? -Eben Moglen
			
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.