Microsoft's EU settlement unfriendly to open source

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is up in arms over some of the terms that Microsoft is looking to put in its server licence. According to a EU ruling from last year, Microsoft has to allow third party tools to work together with Windows Server. But the licence that Microsoft has drafted to enable this, effectively blocks out any open source application, the FSF told Builder.com

Microsoft demands a fee to use Microsoft technical documentation to implement Microsoft server protocols, based on the number of applications sold. But open source doesn't sell any software, nor does it track how many of the applications are downloaded. In short, it doesn't have the money to pay Microsoft and doesn't know how to measure the number of licence fees it should pay to Microsoft.

If the European Commission approves the Microsoft licence, open source applications such as Samba will be blocked from working with Microsoft software. That surely couldn't have been what the EU wanted to achieve when it convicted Microsoft.

28 Jan 2005

Permalink

Do you agree?

Add your comment

Microsoft is being its usual "bully boy" self. Trying to stifle competition in any way it can BUT hopefully the EU commision will continue to show them that their tactics will not work in a free none American market. Microsoft suffers from the American mentality that "might is right" when will they learn

Posted by: Malcolm Neal 16 Feb 2005

I agree that "selling" is somewhat of an odd way to phrase this. But both for commercial and open source software, there is a transaction between the developer and the user: they sign off on the software licence.

Posted by: SV Sleuth 08 Feb 2005

The licence says: "... based on the number of applications sold". So if the application is not sold, but given, there's no fee... or am I wrong?

Posted by: Paul Brioen 08 Feb 2005

Surely if Microsoft is going to charge based on number of applications sold and open source doesn't sell applications then Microsoft will have to provide the technical documentation for free? OK it's a bit of an oversimplification but the EU should let them put this in the licence and then explain to them what it means in an open source world.

Posted by: andrew 08 Feb 2005

I can't imagine this licence being approved by the EC commission purely from the lack of useage that the licence allows. The whole point of the exercise (on the server API's) was to promote interoperability between MS and non MS services - a restrictive licence is exactly contra to that agreement. Bear in mind that MS wanted to call the non Media Player version of their o/s "Reduced ..... WinXP" and were told that, OK but it'll cost you $5M/day until you change the name to something less petty - MS changed the name within 24 hours. Another play at petty politics by MS ("I'm taking my ball & going home" spoiling attitude - purile!) and almost certainly doomed to fail in Europe.

Posted by: Jez 08 Feb 2005

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email address:	We won't publish your address
Your comment title:
Your comment:	By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions. Your comment will be moderated before publication.