Microsoft foes lukewarm on Windows licensing

(continued from previous page)

to participate in Microsoft's current protocol-licensing program, which has been in effect since the U.S. antitrust agreement in 2002.

"The protocols disclosed in the U.S. case are not sufficiently helpful to Novell to justify the overrestrictive license terms of the programs or the unreasonable cost of the license," Novell said in a statement.

Similarly, Computer Associates International, which acquired network security company Netegrity earlier this year, said it will look into the new licensing program but had not yet determined whether it was worth it.

IBM declined to comment on the EU ruling because an appeal in the case is still pending.

Jeremy Allison, the co-creator of open-source product Samba, said he is interested in the new licensing scheme because it could greatly benefit the Samba software, which lets Unix and Linux servers share files the same way Windows servers do.

But he warned that it has to be substantially different from Microsoft's current program in order to be useful.

In the United States, Microsoft charges protocol licensees for each copy of software shipped with the technology, Allison said. This per-unit royalty is incompatible with the General Public License (GPL) that governs Samba. Instead, Allison would like to see Microsoft share its protocol documentation with a select group for a lump sum.

A spokeswoman for Linux software maker Red Hat said the company was in favor of the EU ruling because it is designed to curtail monopolistic practices. But Red Hat has no plans to license Microsoft's server protocols.

However, another Linux provider, Paris-based Mandrakesoft, made clear that it would not license any Microsoft protocols.

Mandrakesoft CEO Francois Bancilhon said he would rather "die than purchase a Microsoft license." Instead, the company will work on interoperability with Microsoft software through existing standards efforts.

CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.

Duh

Who would want to willing pay through the nose for a shoddy server?

Who would be willing to pay through the nose for the most unsecure software around?

This is not news.

[David Arbogast]

HUH?!?

The answer to both your questions is likely to be "none."

However, since over 90% of the market is paying for Windows when free alternatives exist, your inferred anti-MS slam is somewhat watered-down.

Assuming nobody wants to license the technology, as you suggest, then the ruling is clearly pointless. Wouldn't you agree?