Open-source fans can be a skeptical bunch, but I've seen their collective opinions shift--for example in the gradually diminishing loathing for Sun Microsystems as that company stopped deriding Linux and started moving its portfolio to open-source software.
So it's not a surprise that various representatives had a mixed reaction to Microsoft's move Thursday to share details of its technology with open-source programmers.
The move could make it easier for many projects to work well with Microsoft products and potentially replace them--for example the Thunderbird e-mail software could communicate better with Microsoft Exchange servers and also displace Microsoft Outlook on PCs. But Microsoft also made it clear that a pledge not to sue open-source programmers only applied in "non-commercial" contexts, so open-source fans didn't get everything they want.
And even though Microsoft said it now will share the specific list of patents it says it has on technology it wants to license to others--something open-source fans have sought once Microsoft asserted last year that Linux and other projects violate 235 patents--some see signing licenses as incompatible with open-source license requirements.
For its part, Microsoft is pledging to move beyond its historically adversarial treatment of the open-source realm. "As Microsoft takes this significant step forward into the interconnected world of the future, we aspire to doing so with members of the open source community by our side now and for the long haul," said Bill Hilf, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, on his blog. Hilf previously ran Microsoft's Linux lab and was an Linux deployment specialist at IBM.
I surveyed various companies and individuals about the move and received some other thoughts unsolicited. Here are some reactions:
• Jim Zemlin, Linux Foundation executive director: "The world of software development has been marching in a steady direction toward being open and transparent. As Linux's use continues to rise, so does the demand for customers to enable it to interoperate with Microsoft products. This announcement by Microsoft seems to indicate they want to participate in that march. Even if some of the announced details still seem less than ideal for open source developers, at least it's a first step."
• Michael Cunningham, Red Hat's general counsel: "Red Hat regards this most recent announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism. Three commitments by Microsoft would show that it really means what it is announcing today:
"Commit to open standards: Rather than pushing forward its proprietary, Windows-based formats for document processing, OOXML, Microsoft should embrace the existing ISO-approved, cross-platform industry standard for document processing, Open Document Format (ODF) at the International Standards Organization's meeting next week in Geneva...
"Commit to interoperability with open source: Instead of offering a patent license for its protocol information on the basis of licensing arrangements it knows are incompatible with the GPL (General Public License)--the world's most widely used open source software license--Microsoft should extend its Open Specification Promise to all of the interoperability information that it is announcing today will be made available...
"Commit to competition on a level playing field: Microsoft's announcement today appears carefully crafted to foreclose competition from the open-source community. How else can you explain a 'promise not to sue open-source developers' as long as they develop and distribute only 'non-commercial' implementations of interoperable products? This is simply disingenuous."
• Miguel de Icaza, founder of the GNOME project and a Novell programmer working on Mono, an open-source implementation of Microsoft's .Net software: "As a chess move, it is a fascinating one...On the surface it looks very good. (There are) lots of things that we want to interoperate with--Office, SQL Server, SharePoint. Getting the documentation to everyone sounds great, and it seems like they are serious about doing more interoperability work...When the full list for patents becomes available, the question is what will open-source vendors do if they find pieces that have historically infringed: will they choose to license and be the recipients of the community wrath, or will they hold their grounds and risk a lawsuit?"
• Jeremy Allison, a founder of the Samba open-source project: "The devil is in the details. If they can follow through with this, the world will be a better place...It doesn't mean any change for us (Samba) as we already had all these documents, and the promise not to sue is only for 'non-commercial' open source, which is a bit meaningless. At least everyone now gets access to the same info, which I'm very happy about. Hey, should we ask for our money back ? :-)."
• Matt Asay, vice president of business development for Alfresco and a writer for CNET's Blog Network: "The really big news is Microsoft's commitment to open APIs (application programming interfaces) and open protocols...It's great news, and it's big news. My company has been seeking this API and protocol information for months (years, really). But Microsoft's pledge doesn't obviate the need to negotiate patent royalties, if required, with the company."
• Andi Gutmans, a co-founder of Zend: "I have no doubt Microsoft is doing the right thing for their business. I believe Microsoft has finally understood that their closed nature has significantly hindered the growth of their ecosystem...Microsoft has had a strong Microsoft-centric ecosystem, but going down this path they are able to extend their applicable market beyond today's reach...I believe the PHP community can only benefit from this move. With PHP being a heterogeneous solution which works on pretty much any operating system, any database and any Web Server; the more interoperability capabilities it has with all open-source and proprietary solutions the better...Microsoft's all or nothing approach has been an accelerator for the adoption of open-source operating systems. While I am a big fan of Linux, I do believe that this is going to put an increasing amount of pressure on the Linux/Unix backers to deliver innovation and value on top of these systems."
Update 5:32 p.m.: I added commentary from Microsoft's Bill Hilf.
(Credit:
Samba)
A complicated third-party arrangement means that the open-source Samba project will be able to make use of proprietary documents describing Microsoft file-sharing software.
Samba, governed by the General Public License (GPL), lets Unix or Linux servers behave like Windows machines used to share files over a network and control networked printers. But the effort has been difficult: Microsoft doesn't go out of its way to share the details of the protocols; patent infringement concerns also have appeared more than once.
On Thursday, though, the Samba team announced a deal that gets around the previous barriers. The increasingly influential Software Freedom Law Center, led by open-source legal guru Eben Moglen, established a nonprofit group called the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation. The PFIF is paying Microsoft 10,000 euros (about $14,400) for documentation that will be shared under a nondisclosure agreement (click here for a PDF of the NDA or read this Samba explanation for further details) with Samba programmers.
Those programmers are free to write code based on the documentation, though not to share the documentation itself, Samba said. And Microsoft must keep the documentation up to date.
The move is interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's a concrete outcome after years of antitrust efforts that had left many Microsoft foes bitter. For another, the technological repercussions very likely will strengthen a direct Microsoft competitor. And perhaps most interesting, it illustrates the growing legal sophistication and clout of the free and open-source programming movement.
Samba leader Jeremy Allison is champing at the bit with the technical possibilities the agreement opens up for the software project.
"If you'll pardon me breaking into song: it's beginning to look a lot like Christmas," Allison said.
Among the features he expects will be added as a result of the agreement are full support for Microsoft's Active Directory, encrypted files, a better search interface, and support for "SMB2," a new version of Microsoft's Server Message Block protocol after which the Samba project took its name. SMB2 is built into Longhorn Server, which when released in 2008 will be called Windows Server 2008.
I asked Allison whether open-source code in fact reveals information in the proprietary documentation. "It does to those who can understand it. It's not revealing the actual documents, though, and that's the main thing," he said.
Why was Microsoft so willing to share the specifications now? In short, the antitrust case the European Union brought against Microsoft required the company to release interoperability information. Most recently, Microsoft agreed to share the information for a one-time fee rather than requiring a share of revenues from products--a pricing scheme that doesn't jibe well with open-source methods.
The roundabout way of getting proprietary information to an open-source project may sound abstruse, but it's actually relatively common. Companies provide information to open-source programmers under nondisclosure terms, knowing full well the coders will release open-source code that reveals at least in part how hardware works.
Indeed, one purpose of the Linux Foundation is to make sure there's an organization in place to handle NDAs. Novell programmer Greg Kroah-Hartman now runs a program that regularly does so in order to write software drivers that let Linux computers communicate with various hardware devices.
One specific case in point: Red Hat programmer David Miller has worked with Sun Microsystems to bring Linux support to its Sparc processors. "I signed an NDA with Sun that got me the documentation and allowed me to write GPL code using it, but I'm not allowed to pass on those documents to others."
What's notable about the Samba case is that it involves Microsoft, which at times has been outspoken about free and open-source software. Although the company tried to tone down earlier rhetoric that called the programming movement "un-American" and a "cancer," the company resumed the offensive this year, declaring in May that Linux and other open-source projects infringe 235 Microsoft patents. Microsoft didn't say which specific patents it believed were infringed.
The Samba agreement also specifically addresses the patent issue. Microsoft is required to make a current list of patents involved in the protocols, Samba said, letting programmers work around them.
"The patent list provides us with a bounded set of work needed to ensure non-infringement of Samba and other free-software projects that implement the protocols documented by Microsoft under this agreement," Samba said Thursday. "Any patents outside this list cannot be asserted by Microsoft against any implementation developed using the supplied documentation."
For a blow-by-blow history of Samba's attempts to get access to the Microsoft documentation, another Samba leader, Andrew Tridgell, has posted a long account at the Samba Web site.
The Samba team has released an early look at a new version 4.0 of the open-source file-sharing software that's geared to mesh more tightly with Windows networks.
Samba reproduces Windows protocols used by file and print servers, letting Linux or Unix operating systems handle some tasks a Windows server ordinarily would. The most notable feature of the Samba 4.0 alpha release is support for Windows Active Directory logon technology used since Windows 2000, project leaders said last week.
The feature has been under development for years. The Samba group released a version of Samba with the Active Directory support more than a year and a half ago, but that was just a "technology preview."
The new version will be developed in parallel with the existing stable 3.0 version.
- prev
- 1
- next
