Does 'Open Source' Have To Mean 'Free'? 256
Unhappy Windows User asks: "An article on AltaVista states that Microsoft will "fight to the death anything that threatens its intellectual property". The article states that, by keeping APIs closed, Microsoft has an advantage over other software vendors such as Corel. But how exactly would disclosing the source code be a threat to IP? After all, it's still protected by copyright, isn't it? Not publishing the source code simply gives Microsoft a chance to leverage their monopoly on the market. What's to stop companies distributing software with source code whilst maintaining the copyright to it? This would only allow other companies to write software that integrates with it, and the security-conscious would be able to check the code for bugs and potential security flaws. After all, when I buy a car, I cannot make an identical copy and sell it, as the design is protected by copyright. But I am entitled to look inside, and fix it if something's wrong. " Interesting thought. Would the revealing of source code damage IP rights simply because it is in the open for all to see? Your ideas still remain your ideas and your implementation of said ideas are still yours as well, right?
Re:Yes, it _does_ (Score:1)
In fact, I seem to remember a few years back that Doug Lea had figured out that MS had taken his kick-ass memory allocator [oswego.edu] off the Net and used it in one of their OSes (NT?). Since he didn't have the money or time to fight them, he didn't bother. He eventually dropped the copyright and left it to the public domain.
I know I should prejudge people, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this sort of thing were all over MS's code.
Re:Trademark dilution (Score:1)
Re:Carmack? (Score:1)
Re:VM Ware and WINE (Score:1)
Re:What about transmeta? [Totally OT] (Score:1)
What's an API? (Score:1)
This is where MS can arbitrarily get around this requirement to publish API's. Just don't call something an API function and you don't have to publish it. Did the judge clearly define the difference between a public API and a private function, from a legal perspective? Are they going to be forced to document every little internal function in all the Windows source to be sure? That would be a big document.
Note that forcing publication of all their code exposes all functions and makes the API distinction moot.
Re:Yes, "open source" has to mean free/gratis. (Score:1)
I hurt myself while running around the room. Does that mean I can sue you?
Whoops. (Score:1)
'Closed Source' Model Promotes Theft (Score:2)
Moglen: Microsoft can't assert patents (Score:2)
Eben Moglen, Columbia Law School professor and pro bono lawyer for the FSF, spoke on MarketPlace Radio (Minnesota Public Radio, carried on many NPR stations) last Wednesday following the court's breakup finding. One of Moglen's comments was that the FoF against Microsoft, detailing as it did a list of anti-competitive and monopolistic activities, would preclude Microsoft from being able to assert its patent IP rights.
I don't recall the precise argument, and MarketPlace doesn't provide freely accessible archives, but it might be that Microsoft would find itself stripped of its patents or simply unable to assert them. Patents are a legal means for providing monopoly advantage in a restricted area for a limited time -- an advantage courts might find the company doesn't require or has lost rights to claim.
This does raise the bar though for any release of source or APIs to Microsoft code, however. Interesting times, it seems.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org]
Re:What's an API? (Score:2)
Big advantage. And they don't have to document the new API until later or not at all: it's not part of a Windows release.
Undocumented calls in MS APIs fall into three categories: The ones that really ARE stable and used by their apps, the ones that can change at any time, and the ones that will be stable until the competition takes advantage of it. MS applications developers (of course) are told which is which. The rest are stuck guessing.
Re:You're Absolutely Right (Score:2)
What if it was a small company that wasn't even worth the amount of money I would have to spend on a lawsuit?
Then the info doesn't lead to a successful suit and the 'loss' couldn't have been all that much.
It's the same as Metallica trying to prosecute all the individual kids who steal their MP3s.
I notice that of the people who protested being kicked from Napster (and thus got reinstated), I haven't heard of Metallica actually pursuing any of them in court. That's just the way it goes sometimes.
Re:What's an API? (Score:2)
The thing is, I was in the devtools department.
The real hidden/obfuscated API use is likely to be in Office and such, not in the devtools. (That would be why a bunch of system DLLs shipped with Office). Since April 1999 is not really all that long (About the time the MS/DOJ thing was getting going, Hmmmmmm....).
Re:What's an API? (Score:2)
Just don't call something an API function and you don't have to publish it.
Simple, if an app can call it, it's an API. If it's not possable to call it, even by explicit addressing, it's an internal function. Given MSes habit of security by obscurity, they could be in for some real trouble. I wonder how many places in Windows code depend on code in a DLL to pre-check parameters before the kernel blindly accepts them?
I also wonder how many places MS applications bypass the .dll and do their own checking to gain a performance of functionality advantage over the competition.
Re:You're Absolutely Right (Score:2)
I do not have the time to sift through the source of every product that's released out there to see what part of my code they've stolen, then engage a bunch of lawyers to prove in a court of law that that code was indeed stolen.
Just offer a percentage to anyone who provides information leading to a successful suit. If the money itself isn't enough incentive, disgruntled employees are always looking for ways to get even.
The other shoe (Score:2)
Of course, what do I know. I've just watched the development of software such as The GIMP, Sketch, and heck, even KDE and GNOME and watched them thrive in a non-corporate (even mostly non-pay!) environment.
Moderate this up! This really happens. (Score:2)
--
Re:Disclosed Source != Open-Source (Score:2)
However, I still think we need a new term for the system under which most Linux software is licensed. "Free Software," while certainly a good description, has the unfortunate side effect of having connotations it was not meant to have. This is due to the fact that the English language has no word for "free as in speech" doesn't also mean "free as in beer." So we need to look to other languages, I think. "Software libere" was always one of my favorites. Anyone have any better ideas?
I continue to believe... (Score:2)
M$ knows that if they release the source code to any of their OS's that the first public reactions, after someone has even managed to wade through all of it, will be utter disbelief that it's mostly a crude hack, held together with the programming equivalent of duct tape...
I mean, how many billions of lines of code are supposed to be in Win 2000?
Oh! There's only millions of lines of code!
How svelte!
t_t_b
--
Re:GPL Problem (Score:2)
FSF and GPL are squarely anti-business.
Is that such a bad thing, considering the fact that most (if not all) businesses are squarely anti-people?
Michael Chisari
mchisari@usa.net
Wrong Question: This is the way MS wants us... (Score:2)
The real question is: Does somebody else (anybody else, but Microsoft is one of the few who have ever tried) have the right to put something on your computer that allows them to do something that you cannot do?
That is theft of private property, no matter how you look at it. It is so brazen that even MS doesn't dare claim in their click-through licenses. Now they are trying to seize that right in a court of law, claiming it derives from IP rights.
The press has largely ignored this turn in MS's arguments, even though it greatly contributed to the remedies selected by the judge. They gave up claiming that they had never used closed APIs and are now claiming that opening APIs will destroy their business. Bill Gates has even made the claim Windows9X and Office could never have been developed without close cooperation between the two teams. Why aren't the TV networks showing this footage back-to-back with Steve Ballmer reassuring developers that there was a "Chinese wall" between the two divisions which was never breached?
These remedies demonstrate both what the judge understands and what he doesn't understand. He has ordered open APIs, showing that he understands the APIs are the key to the abusive use of the monopoly. He has accepted the government's strange call for a "secure facility" where ISVs can examine the source code for the APIs, demonstrating he doesn't understand how it can be done.
_Rant on meaning of "secure facility" omitted._
I have proposed one way to police open APIs, which doesn't violate IP: Hire a small group of independent experts (paid for by MS) to verify the completeness of all APIs. They have to be allowed access to source code that compiles to exact copies of all binaries sold to the public. Fines if they are shown to have undocumented APIs; enormous fines if those APIs turn out to be used by MS apps.
Bob Lewis of _Infoworld_ has proposed another policing mechanism, which also does not violate IP: Take them at their word and offer a bounty for each undocumented API found by an outsider. Bounties to be paid by MS.
Do not be diverted by the Microsoft PR machine.
Re:Yes, it _does_ (Score:2)
Maybe this is why they're so scared of opening the source now? Maybe they want a year to vet the code and make sure any OSS release is not in violation of various OSS licenses...
And maybe pigs can fly..
Your Working Boy,
Re:RTFM (Score:2)
Actually if you read it, it says nothing about what I spoke upon.
Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicided means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable production cost -- PREFERABLY, downloading off the internet without charge.
See? It says nothing about freely releasing source code to people who haven't bought the software package. It merely says that if you don't release the source code with the binaries, you have to have them somewhere well publicized. The answer is simple. Include a source CD package with every licensed copy. Then you're NOT obliged to post the code on the internet.
All it says is that you may not restrict a party from buildig it into an agregate product distribution.
Yes, that clause DOES pretty much make it tough to control redistribution of software. All someone has to do is buy a copy of the product and make the source available. The only problem is that the community doesn't necessarily have access to the ever-evolving code base.
As long as they're not obfuscating source code or funneling output through a preprocessor binary, they still qualify for the term "Open Source".
Simple grammar. Nothing more.
Please note that I don't think use of the term in this way is "right" or a "good thing". I'm merely stating that that is how it can be construed. And until the guys at OpenSource change the definition, or someone takes it to court to define it further.
So YES I did RTFM.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Depends on what you mean by "Free"... (Score:2)
The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale.
So if you mean "free" as in $0 (gratis), yes. If something is open source you can't practically charge for the code, because people are able to get the same code for free. That's why the open source economy has become one of "who has the prettiest box, and the best tech support?" Code isn't worth paying for, to the open source zealot.
Of course, the title for this article is nothing but misleading. The Microsoft thing has nothing to do with "open source". It has only to do with them making portions of their source "available", which is a completely different story.
Trademark dilution (Score:2)
However, ESR and Bruce got involved in alittle pissing contest and didn't take advantage of current trademark law, and now any company could legitimately claim that they have not enforced the trademark, hence it is lost. A pity too.
However, there is another term out there that we might be able to latch on to - free software. "Always, there is another way yes, oooh" --Yodageek on programming.
Note: Excercise caution when handling this post: contents under pressure.
Re:Trademark dilution (Score:2)
And you were too busy flaming to notice that they dropped it because they couldn't agree to who owned it. But, you don't have to take my word for it....
Ask Eric Raymond [opensource.org].
Or if you don't believe him, why don't you ask Bruce Perens [spi-inc.org]?
Secret formula (Score:2)
(the above analogy would fit better if there were a Pepsi drink monopoly (OS) they could leverage via secret chemistry to dominate the chicken industry (entre's or apps)).
Re:Support / Ease of Reverse Engineering (Score:2)
I spent 5 years developing applications with Smalltalk and one of the things that made that an enjoyable experience (besides the merits of the language) was the culture of Smalltalk vendors and other developers making source available. It allowed me to see examples of Smalltalk code and learn and adapt ideas for my own uses. It allowed me to understand the system much better than any documentation could. It allowed me to step through all the code at the source level, not just the application code I had written. Occasionally, it allowed me to find bugs in their code and it always helped me determine whether my application's misbehaviour was my bug or theirs. On the rare occasions when it was their bug, we were able to send their support staff enough detail to quickly get a fix or, more often, we were able to actually send the fix along with the bug report. We were happy to do this because we wanted the fix included in the next release of their product. We never felt the vendor should fix anything that we had done.
I wasn't interested in taking all their code to create a rival Smalltalk development product and I don't think anyone else did any wholesale copying either. I wouldn't have been interested in buying a Smalltalk product which was just a copy of another vendor's because I want a relationship with the innovator, not the copier.
The situation is somewhat similar with Java (to a lesser extent). There is less source freely available for Java (e.g. not the compiler) but much of the code I care about can be had.
So, I'm making a distinction of what source code I want made available based on whether it would be useful to me. I would like to see operating systems, languages, and development environments with source code available (others might want device drivers). I don't think the vendor should charge extra for the source. And I think that although vendors may have the fears you mention, they are wrong.
Re:Intellectual Property (Score:2)
The legal justification of the copyright clause is not to protect the creative efforts of individuals. The justification, and purpose of the copyright clause is to provide incentive for creative individuals to produce, not to protect their work. A very crucial difference of philosophy.
Copyright law provides for many different uses which might be incompatable with maximizing the "protection of creative efforts" of an individual, if that were the purpose of copyright law.
For instance, you have the fair use provisions.
Also, there is a Constitutional mandate that copyrights expire. Terms of copyright must be limited.
As another example, you have the right to record and publish your own performances of other people's songs, once they have been initially published, even if they don't want you to. In this case, you would pay a fixed fee. See this reference [cptech.org] for more information on how compulsory mechanical licensing works, especially the link to 17 USC Sec 115. The purpose of compulsory mechanical licensing was originally to break up the player-piano-roll monopoly, which isn't much of an issue anymore. These days, it's what allows your band to include a Bob Dylan cover on your album, for instance, even if Bob Dylan happens to hate your band.
The MPAA and RIAA are heavily promoting propaganda that misrepresents the nature and purpose of copyright law. Please don't take their explanations of things at face value.
DEC used to do it. (Score:2)
Re:Disclosed Source != Open-Source (Score:2)
This is not true.
Yes, it is. Open Source means I can copy any or all of the source code for use in my derivitave work -- so I copy all of it and compile the program as "mine" and it's mine. It's still open source, but I have a right to use it 'cause it's my open-source program, based on yours. Since I have your source, I can reverse-engineer or remove any reliance on external services, cryptograhpic license codes or hardware copy protection schemes -- and it's legal 'cause it's my software, based on yours.
You may object that your license can control my right to use, but that means you're not using an open-source license, so the argument collapses.
The point is that offering Open Source software requires a company to find a different revenue stream than selling the software. The software must become an enabler for some other unique offering of product or service, that's based on tangible objects or labor. It's entirely possible to charge on the basis of labor for the software, you just have to collect up front or as-you-go, and be willing to forgo profits where others choose to supply the labor rather than purchase it from you.
Re:API != Source code (Score:2)
GPL zealots (Score:2)
Re:API != Source code but Revealed =! Open (Score:2)
MS-OS will want to selling that info (conferring a competitive advantage on the buyer) via partnering agreements. Moreover, MS-OS won't want its current OS to be *too* useful -- or it'll have less basis to sell its next OS (remember, MS-OS will now live or die on selling licenses and upgrades. It has lost its other major revenue streams)
MS needs to turn all those copies of Win95 out there into copies of WinMe and later versions. The partnerships will undoubtedly include a promise from the App developers to create new OS versions and make them their new primary product lines ASAP after a new OS release. (This is the dark side of "release early, release often") It will also give them some leverage to forestall the Next Great Feature Set (for an app) until The Next Great OS version is ready
Re:We have to realize (Score:2)
By releasing the source code, what's to stop a competitor of from using it in their closed source-project?
It will be rather impossible to prove it.
If you know which compiler was used, you could always compare the binaries. Something similar actually appeared in court a few years ago, and it worked. IIRC is was stolen closed-source code that time, but in principle its the same.
Re:Split it and it only makes sense... (Score:2)
The answer is even simpler than this.
All the government has to do is decree that any and all communication between the two MS chunks should be open.
The thing about doing things this way rather than telling MS to openly document all APIs is that it's infinately easier to police. How the hell is the government supposed to ensure that all the APIs circulating within redmond are totally open? Communications between two companies, meanwhile, are a lot easier to police.
So what you wind up with is that even if the MS-apps company gets access to source code, ability to rewrite parts of the OS at will, access to lower-level APIs, hooks to insert a web browser into the OS, etc., so does everyone else, and it's done in a way you can actually tell what's going on to some extent.
Trusting MS to go along with their punishment is a big mistake.. remember the whole Netscape lawsuit only started because MS refused to abide by a settlement where they agreed not to tie anything to the OS.. you've got to be totally certain MS isn't trusted to do anything on their own or it won't work.
-mcc-baka
CHINESE-WALL!
Two answers (Score:2)
Microsoft is basicly saying it won't tell you how to write code for Windows. You must use our compiler or a blessed compiler (like Corel/Imprise C++.. now you see why Corel wants to give away the compiler)
Open source means yes the part of the source you give away must be free... otherwise it is liccensed source...
Even if it's not in a recompilable form (such as only part of the code) it's still free for someone to add the missing code and build a Windows clone around...
Microsoft is being anil
Microsoft wants Windows to be an operating system... part of that means documenting the API.
But Microsoft wants Windows to BE a software pacage where only Microsoft can sell software.
Think about this.. Dosn't Windows run just a bit to much like a software pacage? Everything bundled together?
I mean it makes no sence as an operating system but makes perfict sence as a software pacage.
Of course like any software pacage Microsoft wants to protect the API so no one else can write software for it.
But Windows isn't a closed develuper environment. Other companys can and do write software for Windows.
It is sold as an operating system and reguardless of how it is writen it is an operating system.
Microsoft wishes to be the only company in history to close off programming access. To limit who may write code for Windows.
IBM, Commodore and Apple went as far as to PAY companys like Microsoft to port software to the systems they make.
There isn't any reason for them to block programmers from writing code... No reason to not document the interface into the software, and hardware.
Commodore pacaged programming directions with the computers they sold.
Apples intro to computers was a programming tutorial.
It was all so importent to computer makers that they teach programming to as many users as posable and encurage free software develupment.
But Microsoft has discuraged free software develupment..
They simply don't want anyone writing code for Windows...
Microsoft has been saying "Go away" to software develupers for a long time... and this is just annother such insult...
I wish software develupers would lissen and stop writing code for a company who clearly dosn't want your code.
Write code for a platform that wants your code... code for Linux, MacOs and BeOS.
Re:License != contract (Score:2)
That's a pretty broad statement. It's tantamount to saying "A contract(1) is not a contract(2)", where #1 is a contract, printed on paper, waiting for people to sign it, and #2 is the signed copy of same.
I agree that click-through EULAs are not contracts, though; rather, they should not be contracts. I'm afraid that most legal opinions disagree, though. I work for a law firm that (among other things) writes licenses for software packages. What it all comes down to is that if the licensee pisses off the software vendor, the vendor is going to win in court unless the licensee can show that what they did was explicitly permitted by the license.
Re:API != Source code (Score:2)
Micros~1 already makes its Windows source code available to "qualified representatives" of certain OEMs, ISVs and IHVs through licensing and non-disclosure agreements. How does this change anything?
Aye, there's the rub. (Score:2)
The willingness to die is surely over secret APIs, but not for the reason you suspect. If Microsoft is forced to reveal the "internal" (aka "hidden") APIs, then their main problem isn't the direct loss of that advantage - it's the loss of deniability. When accusations of hidden APIs are replaced by knowledge of hidden APIs, Microsoft's PR disaster ratchets up by a quantum leap. More fuel for the 200+ lawsuits. More customers just saying 'no' to Microsoft. More people agreeing with the judge that Microsoft can't be trusted on anything.
ps. - The AV article refers back to the time before the hammer came down. Was Microsoft's proposed "except internal" modification to the DoJ plan one of the accepted items, or one of the rejected items?
--
Re:Split it and it only makes sense... (Score:2)
But.. part of the breakup will *forbid* the Apps company and the OS company from making exclusive deals like that. If the OS company want's to publish API's for the Apps company, it will be required to also publish them for *all* companies that want them. It will be forbidden to make exclusive deals or to keep information out of the hands of other developers.
To put it differently, the thing that shareholders want is increase in stock value. Period. So.. if they go to a board meeting and say 'we want you and the apps company to act like a monopoly to stranglehold the market'... well.. obviously they can't do that. It will be forbidden.
As an OS company, they will be obliged to maximizeprofits.. mainly, by competing against other OS, AS AN OS.
And as an Apps company, they will be obliged to maximize profits, mainly, bhy competing against other app companies..
Because... (Score:2)
If we had source to Office, we would know *exactly* what it's file formats are. This is the "ip" that MS wants to protect.
So.. to the non-computer literate, they would see this as microsoft protecting it's technological advancements, and to those like us, we just see them keeping something a secret just so nobody else can work with it. There' snothing technically advanced about it at all.
API != Source (Score:2)
they just have to discolse, 100%, the entire programming interface available for writing windows software. The *ENTIRE* thing.
This is analogous to knowing what the linux system calls are, as well as what the library functions of the standard libraries we use are. We do not necessarily need source to any of these components to makefull use of it.
The problem with MS is that they don't release thisinformation completely,and use that fact to their own advantage.
Re:API != Source code (Score:2)
Microsoft will of course be the one to decide who's qualified right? And they'll do it by allowing only MCSE's or whatever the highest "microsoft indoctrination degree" is.
Actually, I think the judge is on to most of MS's trickery and will probably have some independant 3rd party qualify people.
We have to realize (Score:2)
to software.
Even though you might be able to figure out
how a car operates, it is still very expensive
to copy it.
Besides, it is also much easier to find out
if your competitor uses your copyrighted work.
By releasing the source code, what's to stop
a competitor of from using it in their closed
source-project?
It will be rather impossible to prove it.
Because of this, open source is not always the
right decision.
If you are afraid of other people stealing your
ideas, open source is not for you.
And now for something completely different:
the introduction seemed to talk about
open APIs. Open APIs is _not_ the same as
"open source".
Microsoft should be forced to open up all their
APIs to give competitors a fair chance.
It would however be difficult to know wether
MS has opened all of their APIs, or just some.
It is like saying: "give me all your cash", and
then _not_ strip search the person afterwards.
Re:That is silly! (Score:2)
An NDA would specifically remove those rights, so NDAs are incompatible with GPLs.
Re:What's an API? (Score:2)
I guess they forgot to tell me all that good stuff while I was there. Because all our team ever used was the source code to our own product, and the documentation available on MSDN.
That's it. Nothing more.
Simon
Re:Disclosed Source != Open-Source (Score:2)
Enter software. Software's main job is simply to describe the means of getting something done. In a sense, this is just like the book on calculus as mentioned by another poster. Anyone can take the ideas shown in the book and apply them elsewhere, be it new books or a computer program. Copyright law does not cover that.
The problem we have here is that the value of software is simply the implementation of certain methods. If the source is revealed, the ideas can easily be adopted in another program. Face it, there are not too many ways of expressing an algorithm. The most important reason why software can be sold to support a company lies in the "trade secrets", if you will, contained inside the software. Many, many companies like Adobe depend on selling their methods to consumers. After all, what is computer software but a collection of functions.
Software certainly should not be patentable, and copyrights in an open source format surely do not afford much protection. So it seems that the only way for business to continue in computer software is to keep closed-source computing. It's just the way it is.
Bad Analogy (Score:2)
Re:API != Source code (Score:2)
Open API, close source. As a BeOS programmer, I can say it works fine.
Do you really think Be has ALL of thier APIs open? I seriously doubt it. Any good code will break down an implementation of a public API into smaller peices. These peices each have an API, but they are subject to change, hence they are private. Opening up private API's can only lead to people using them, and these apps would break on almost any reimplementation or change. Not having an app work on the next version of a product is bad thing for buissness and exceptance of the next version of the component.
People using private API's are the ones that break on the next version of the project. If customers really need access to certain types of internal data, as have happend with virus scanners, then the custimer feedback may lead to some clean up work and some private APIs may be come published, or a new API will be created as an abstraction layer. A public API in the commericial world is an expensive thing. The interface may need to be cleaned up code wise, documentation work including sample code, a much higher degree of testing needs to be done, and developer support will have to cover it for as long as the API is on the market (forever). From my perspective the testing is the more expensive part.
This remains to be seen. . . (Score:2)
The defense was later extended to Copyright, and then to trademark defenses.
In its heyday, the defense was so popular and strong as to give rise to an automatic inclusion of the defense in every answer. The Federal circuit, at least in recent years, has literally castrated the defense, however.
No doubt, Microsoft has been adjudicated a monopoly. further, Microsoft has been adjudicated an antitrust violator. These two elements are by far the most expensive and difficult to prove in a misuse defense generally, and are now auto-proved in cases against MS.
However, another interesting question relates to the causation issue, whether the anticompetitive conduct must be related to the particular assertion of IP assets. In a case entirely unrelated to the government's lawsuit, involving a patent (not asserted by the government), can it be argued that the anticompetitive conduct of MS generally relates in any way to its subsequent assertion of that patent. Under applicable law, at least for Federal circuit patent law, this may well be difficult, perhaps impossible, for the defendant to prove.
For Copyrights and Trademarks, interestingly enough, it may be much easier for a defendant.
In any case, clients I represented before leaving the law had some success making this argument against Microsoft in the Copyright and Trademark context, at least for the purpose of preliminary motions. But time will tell how the law will come out on this matter.
I don't think Professor Moglen's suggestion is anything like a slam-dunk, but it is certainly one of the many new litigable issues arising from the ashes of this case.
The biggest and most interesting question is how resolution of this case will ease money damage claims by all the aggreived parties in civil antitrust actions.
Destroys Trade Secrecy Protections/EULA abuses (Score:2)
Open Sourcing does two things -- it exposes the technology for review and specification for independent development, and destroys all trade secrets.
It does not, however, preclude assertions of patent protections, which may ultimately be Microsoft's last refuge. Ironically, the two most seminal cases in weakening software patent protections, STAC v. Microsoft and Reiffin (sp?) v. Microsoft, may serve to limit the extent to which Microsoft can stop derivative abuse of its remaining IP rights.
Trade secrecy, while not the most popular tricks, is often the wild card that makes most software cases settle.
While not a panacea, for reasons already noted, open sourcing of Microsoft's code really is a big deal.
This is why... (Score:2)
-Dave Turner.
Lots of "disclosed source" proprietary SW (Score:2)
Copyright remains, and they still didn't give away the right of unlicensed use. But it helped keep things reliable. Hell, Windows NT is directly derived from VMS (David N Cutler led both efforts). So certainly MS could disclose Windows sources without giving anything away.
Re:API != Source code (Score:2)
No, but they do have one for the Native NT calls.
Inside the native NT API [sysinternals.com]
and
Inside Native Applications [sysinternals.com]
tough for small companies... (Score:2)
One argument I know will work is that by going open-source we'll attract a lot of attention from places like /. - so if you can find it in your heart to come take a look at the open-source project home page we've set up (http://enzyme.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]) that would help too...
thanks!
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Re:Split it and it only makes sense... (Score:2)
DB
Old WWIV license and Microsoft (Score:2)
Back in the day, when someone wanted the source code to the popular BBS program "WWIV", all one had to do was pay a nominal fee (it wasn't a huge price, compared to a full shrink-wrapped version of Winblows). After that and a few re-writes later, you had yourself a custom BBS that nobody else had.
The owner of WWIV did not lose any rights *at all* when he sold the source code. Woe be to the one who put up an unregisterd BBS on WWIVNET without paying the piper for the source.
Releasing code != loss of IP rights.
Needless to say, WWIV was wildly popular, and spawned a couple of mutant children, Telegard and Renegade.
It is still available, at http://www.wwiv.com
Microsoft's complaint of IP loss is utter bullshit, and anyone with half a clue and a sense of history knows it. Hopefully Judge Jackson and the Justice Department will not fall for their dubious rouse.
There are lies, damn lies, and Steve Ballmer press conferences.
Source Code vs. Object Code (Score:2)
The arguments against centered on the claim that object code was entirely functional and not expressive (pure funtionality is not copyrightable unlike creative expressions).
Of course, computer object code was eventually ruled a copyrightable medium. It's a shame object code was not determined to be entirely functional. To protect their software, computer programs would then have to be released in source code with a makefile that bound the object code to your hardware. It would be somewhat cumbersome to reinstall software whenever you upgraded, but software authors rights would be protected and users rights to fully inspect their software would be assured. I think the impact to the software industry would have been entirely positive.
In any event, of course proprietary code can be "open source." That's why I prefer the term free code or free software since a plain english reading of "open source" (rather than Open Source) just means you have access to the code - and says nothing more.
Re:We have to realize (Score:2)
In spite of what some may say, it's not even all that revolutionary. As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there was once a very heated legal debate about whether object code could be legally copyrighted.
If you think about it, for a book or any other copyrighted material you purchase, you acquire access to the "source." I don't think software should be any different.
Imagine this world, software vendors distribute their programs on CD entirely in source since object code is not copyrightable. The makefile has some "copy protection" scheme that binds an executable to your specific hardware. Sure, it's cumbersome to reinstall the binaries when you upgrade, but that insures you won't give away your source code CD.
I think software vendors rights could be just as strongly protected as they are now. And users would have access to the source code of the software they purchased, making sure that any evil intentions are exposed in public.
Re:We have to realize (Score:2)
First, this would fix the problem of a competitor stealing your code in a "closed source" project, because there would be no closed source. I'm sure a market would come into existance for a program to search a competitor's software for bits of yours.
It would make it possible for people to make "after-market" versions, much like customized cars. The original manufacturer would still sell copies, but people should have the right to purchase a modified version of a peice of software if they require it. Patches could be distributed by any third party that you want to contract to do the work.
It might make it somewhat easier for people to copy an algorithm, but that's ok, IMO. There's always patents to protect algorithms.
Open Source bad for IP, Open API good. (Score:2)
Re:Disclosed Source != Open-Source (Score:2)
Or what stops companies from just looking at the source, studying it, and then implementing it the same way as the open source app they got it from? All the hard work done by the open source coders, along with the money that was paid to them would be meaningless, as any other company can just look at the source, see how things were done, and then re-implement the feature themselves - but the hard work of designing and coming up with the best alorithms would be lost since it was open sourced. No, i do not think you can open source software without it being free - as in beer, 'cause human(corporate) nature says "what's the easiest and fastest way to make money?" And that would be to copy code, then tweak it a little bit. I mean, who can really say that it was copied? And even harder to prosecute are companies that stole the design and implementation, but then coded it themselves. They did not copy the software, but they did steal the hardest part of the work - the design. Therefore, you cannot open the source without losing money, since you would be giving away the design as well as the algorithms in how you did things, and companies can just steal that and say they did it themselves and release it as proprietary with no real concrete way to prove they did copy.
RTFM (Score:2)
Support / Ease of Reverse Engineering (Score:2)
The first is that it could potentially be a support nightmare. People who know just enough about programming and software to make small, "minor", changes, but not enough to debug the problem when they go wrong. And since they paid for the software, they feel entitled to have someone at the vendor fix the mistake for them. This will probably start happening in the Free Software / Open Source world as well, but Free software maintainers can send people away without fear of lost sales. Commercial vendors have to at least appear to be trying to keep customers happy.
The second reason that occurs to me is that having the source available would make reverse engineering an application relatively trivial. Want to see how that cool feature of a competitor's package was implemented? Buy a copy and look at the source. Then have some one write a detailed description of the algorithm that can be passed to someone that hasn't seen the source for implementation. Mind you, I think this is actually a non-issue except for a few, "innovative", algorithms, but it has to be a concern.
I think the long term benefits of opening the API (greater third party support, longer product life cycles, etc.) greatly outweigh the short term benefits of keeping it closed. However, U.S. companies tend to think on a quarterly basis...
jim nutt
Re:Isn't this what MS did to Apple? (Score:2)
No. Apple and Microsoft have litigated over "look and feel", (the "trash can" case) but the internals of Windows and the Mac aren't even vaguely similar.
Gates WAS willing to "release source" (Score:2)
Does any one remember this incident better than me?
That is silly! (Score:2)
But, if you talk about a NDA source code licence, with a license to freely distribute the results (read executible/object code), then that might work. But it's not an NDA.
Many companies (include M$) has been doing this in a way for years. They would provide source code for libraries, which you may use to build products, as long as they are not a "new version" of what they provide to you. If you have Raima DataManger Source, you can't produce a RDM set of libaries of your own, but you can include it in your application. But M$ says in some of theirs, you can use it, but only on platforms they approve of.
Re:License to steal (Score:2)
And if you can pry it up, it's not nailed down!
Seriously now, RMS says that he copies music without a problem
Anyway, I do a lot of porting work, and from what I see all source code that's made public gets used in commercial software no matter WHAT license happens to be attached it. I don't make a fuss about it, I just pretend I don't know what I'm looking at. Life's too short to try to change human nature, and hey, I'm just in this for the money
Isn't this what MS did to Apple? (Score:2)
Didnt Steve Jobs let Gates in on some of the source code of the Mac OS and showed it to him earlier and such? Look what happened: Microsoft made windows (an almost identical copy) and now Apple is a niche market.
The facts may not all be straight, buts its right in principal
Intellectual Property (Score:2)
OK, enough of that. What MS is trying to do here is leverage its "property" right to fight the break up. This will no doubt slow the process down. But historically, the courts have viewed IP rights in much the same way as they do property rights generally. They are not absolute rights. And MS is likely to find that its ownership of IP provides it limited leverage with the courts for that very reason.
A number of posters have noted that giving access to source code/APIs doesn't alter MS's ownership rights, MS will still own them and they can not be copied exactly without permission from MS. Opening them up would make it easier to use them for all.
Furthermore, MS would have an obligation to vigorously pusue anyone who copied without permission or used them in violation of whatever permission MS granted. Because the case law makes it clear that the only way to protect a copyright and a trademark is to vigorously pursue all violators you know of. An owner who fails to do this will eventually find that the property is in the public domain. Asprin started out as a brand name and came to be used as a label for all products containing ... well asprin. By the time the orginal manufacturer got around to fighting the trademark infringement, the courts found that asprin had become a generic name for a class of products. Through inaction, the manufacturer had lost a very powerful brand name.
Just for clarity's sake, under IP law, one can not own an idea, one can only own the way the idea is expressed. This ownership is limited to a pretty exact way of expressing the idea. No one can copy exactly the way an idea is expressed without violating copyright law. But even fairly minor variations seem to be permissible.
So, MS could never own the idea of, for example, the particular approach to connecting and communicating with a printer, but it can and does have the right to own the exact code that performs this.
The really open question is how different code would have to be to from the original to avoid copyright infringement. I don't think there is any answer to this question, not even a very good theoretical one right now.
None of this apparently applies to patents where the patent office is willing to issue a patent for a very broad idea of a task and how to accomplish it, and then, under current patent law, virtually all techniques for accomplishing that task are covered by the patent and and owned by the owner of the patent, whether or not the patent owner come up with it. But even patents are limited rights.
One final problem for MS is that opening up all of this puts all of this in a fairly public realm. No only must MS protect its code from unauthorized uses, the users will then have the right to challenge whether MS had the right to copyright the code in the first place. This question lead to the demise of Ashton-Tate (does this date me?). Just maybe MS, the bastion of 'inovation', has actually used some other folks' code without permission or copyrighted public domain code rather than innovating all of its code on its own. Competitors might also charge that certain parts of MS's code were exactly like the competitors' code and that the offending code was written by former employees who now work for MS and knew about or perhaps even wrote the original code. Even if none of these things are true, competitors would be able to argue them and ask a court to decide -- delaying and winning at least temporary competitive advantage from the use of MS's proprietary code (if it turns out to be MS's code).
Of course, if only the API (and not the source code) is "open", the source code problems don't arise. And the only reason to fight release of the API code is to prevent competitors applications from running on the MSOS as well as MS's proprietary apps. And why would anyone imagine MS behaving in such a blatantly anticompetitive fashion -- there must be some other reason that explains this and I just haven't thought of yet.
Microsoft is one thing, a small company is another (Score:2)
Visibility is irrelevant to IP (Score:2)
Making source code available has absolutely no impact on ownership of that code (or binaries derived from it). This discussion comes up in the Perl community all the time, as the only practical way to distribute Perl is as source code. The answer to the FAQ "But how do I protect my intellectual property?" boils down to "Hire a lawyer."
Consider three examples:
So, in short, distributing source doesn't matter at all on a legal level in protecting your intellectual property rights. The arguments for source hiding all stem from nonlegal arguments -- for example, small players may not be able to afford to pursue violators, or there may be fear of abuse in countries without strong IP rights enforcement.
Copyright law is very strict... (Score:2)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
It's doable, but... (Score:2)
Except for the fact that large end software corporations feel they have the need to protect more than smaller ones. They also feel that denying the right to view the source gives them additional leverage against competing software vendors, simply because in programming, as in life, there are numerous ways to skin the same cat. Intellectual Property rights have limits, and once you find a way around a certain string of code or section, there (technically) wouldn't be a whole lot Company A could do to Company B.
For a good example, you can take a look at the numerous companies who produce so called "hole-less" security systems, and then hide behind IP rights to protect their source code from scrutiny. These companies maintain that since their "source code" is under lock and key, it is inherantly more secure than "open sourced" security. Rubbish. What these companies are afraid of is someone taking THEIR good idea, re-writing all the garbage code, and releasing a program that is good enough to put them out of business.
Companies with money to lose really don't (and I don't blame them) want to gamble on Open Sourcing themselves to other programmers, AND attempting to get an angle on the market. It's more difficult to have a trade secret if you let it out for all to see.
krystal_blade
Simple Solution (Score:2)
The framework for our developing license is this (from http://www.ipninc.com/opensource/ [ipninc.com]:
Although we may license some of our products as free-of-charge for personal use, or completely free-of-charge, or even GPL'd, the majority of our products will remain under a commercial Open Source license available for a reasonable fee. The gist of it being:
- Our source code may be freely distributed as long as it remains unmodified. Community modifications to the source code must be distributed separately from our source distribution.
- In order for community modifications to be included with our source distribution they must be submitted to, approved, and distributed by us. We do not pay for community contributions
- We will never charge for any community modifications submitted to and distributed by us, but we retain the right to distribute them
- Compilation of the source for investigative or educational purposes is acceptable; Use of compiled binaries without an appropriate license is not.
This sort of license still offers the benefits of Open Source while allowing us to remain in business.As I said, this license is still "under development" and we as of yet have no products to apply it too but we still think its a good idea.
Don't Forget About Trade Secrets (Score:2)
Chris Dickens
MS should, and already does, disclose source (Score:3)
MS has everything to gain by revealing source, without necessarily granting rights to copy. MS is different from a small company that may be trying to market some novel idea and thinks it needs to keep the source secret to do so. MS can gain market share without such secrecy. But MS will be stranded unless it can get developers to write for its API. These developers will increasingly be migrating to Linux and other unix-like systems which open all source. Developers will not trust MS unless source is revealed, I feel, and the courts may require that it be revealed at least to court-appointed inspectors to insure that MS is honestly providing all the API's it should.
Finally, most of the kind of code MS has in its system and applications is nothing special. It is very easy without even reverse engineering to come up with something which does exactly the same, given the API's or headers normally provided to developers today. Exceptions might be new media formats, encryption/decryption algorithms, etc. Stuff that really is unique. Again, most windowing and office productivity software is just more of the same and the techniques have been well known for years. There is nothing special about Microsoft's code - it's just that MS has been in a monopoly position regarding the use of that code (much of which is exactly the same code shared with OS2 jointly developed between MS and IBM which is not that different from what Macintosh or X uses).
If MS does not reveal the code to its operationg system then that system is doomed to rapid extinction. It can happen in a year - certainly in two years. Look how fast Amiga and Os2 and Atari went down from the leading systems for games, corporate desktops and music to not even second tier in terms of market share within one or two years.
Perhaps MS operating systems will be forced to reverse the trend of corrupting open standards and hidden apis just to survive.
On the other hand MS may have much to fear. It is likely that in revealing source hidden features that invade the privacy of users, alleged spy hooks hidden in the code in collusion with the NSA and other spook agencies, and so forth, will come to light. Maybe the risk is too great that these features might be revealed, because they are highly criminal - much worse than abusing a "monopoly". This could lead to criminal charges against MS executives involved. At least those who speculate about such hidden features could be proven right or wrong in making those allegations if source is revealed. MS cannot easily change or hide this they way they can destroy incriminating emails because of checksums and other well known tools to validate changes in software when it is recompiled and compared with older versions.
One way or another, I am not worrying. MS will open up in a reasonable manner and truly attempt to interoperate with open standards or it will go under. It will be interesting to observe the choices that the company or companies make in the near future.
Open Source != Free Software (Score:3)
Open Source: (Oh-pehn Sor-ss): Source code for a given application is readily available to those who use the application.
You see. Nowhere in there does it say that the people get the source for free. Nor does it state that you cannot sell the source with the application and restrict the source only to those who have purchased a license. Open source IN NO WAY obligates a licensee to returning any customization/debugged code to the codebase.
Open Source can be developed by a private company, without any outside development from the Free Software community. Star Office, UBB, and VMWare are nods in this direction.
Example: ThingamaWidget2000 is a popular OS program. But it's not Free Software. It's commmercial, and source code for the software is only issued to those who have a ThingamaWidget2000 license. This gives the licensee the ability to customize/debug their copy of ThingamaWidget2000 to their specific setup..
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:API != Source code (Score:3)
It's highly unlikely that Microsoft has a "Secret Win32 API" manual floating around it's headquarters. In many cases, I'd bet the source code (and the comments therein) is the documentation.
Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs in a Timely Manner, in whatever media Microsoft disseminates such information to its own personnel, all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that Microsoft employs
The court probably knows that a major part of this media is source code access, and therefore MS will need to provide source code to it's competitors until it goes back and rewrites all of the published documentation so that it's good enough for their own developers.
--
slashdot.org and copyright (Score:3)
After all, it's still protected by copyright, isn't it?
From previous articles and comments (the 'Microsoft suing' issue specifically), one would think that copyright means nothing to some slashdot.org users...
I don't think that something being "open source" necessitates it being free, but if this group (slashdot readers) is considered somewhat representative of the viewpoints of programmers in general, then I can understand the reluctance of companies to disclose their source code.
Re:What's an API? (Score:3)
The internal one. Except NT, which uses its own compiler that they wrote (kind of like MACOS using their own agressive compiler). Though the NT one is based on the VC one.
The thing is, I was in the devtools department. Until Visual Studio hits beta and starts getting agressively tested, everyone outside of developer tools is using the latest retail version of Visual Studio. Also, MSDN is available internally in two flavors; the online version (at http://msdn.microsoft.com) and one that's shared out from a network drive (it comes with an MSDN subscription, and is obstensibly less up-to-date than the online one). Which, IIRC, were both the latest publically available MSDN libraries.
I'd say that the major differences in the performance of the final products would be due to little things, like not using malloc() or free() - or even the C-runtime libs, and using hand-crafted versions instead. Reading the memory management docs carefully and thoroughly provides bonuses too - for example, you wouldn't want to use malloc() for a webserver. You'd want to use VirtualAlloc() or create a number of separate heaps using GlobalAlloc().
In other words, write to the OS instead of to the C libs. That gains you an impressive across-the-board performance increase generally.
But if you've got any specific performance problems you're talking about, let me know, and I'll see if there's any tricks I know of that I can answer.
Simon
ps. Currently, I work for Sierra Home... there's nothing that we can't do that Microsoft can do - short of shipping new system DLLs (a la Office). But since April 1999, that practice has been *stopped* from on high to improve TCO and reduce DLL hell - service packs only is the practice now.
Re:API != Source code (Score:3)
I see your point, but I took it as meaning they had to open their API's. It says certain people will be permitted to see "relevant and necessary portions of the source code," which I would argue will ultimately be interpreted to mean the portions of the code that amounts to the application programming interfaces. That is, the sections that show the calling procedure, and nothing more. There's no reason for anyone to see how the API itself is implemented if the API's are published fully and completely.
Hmm. Well, I have to take that back. There is one reason to look at the underlying source code: to see whether Microsoft is lying about their API's again. But I'll wager that Microsoft will be willing to go to court yet again over that particular issue.
We'll see what comes of it!
-Joe
Sheet music is the "source code" for a song (Score:3)
Of course revealing the source doesn't cause a loss of intellectual property rights. Every song is copyrighted. The performance could be considered the binary, the sheet music the source. Sheet music has been available for far longer than recordings, but others having that "source" does not lessen the ability of the copyright owner to enforce their IP rights. (Just ask ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or The Harry Fox Agency.)
Re:No, it doesn't. License=! enforcement (Score:3)
Re:" Who here really believes that simply by attaching a license to software, everyone will politely follow the terms of that license to the letter?"
(raising hand)
It's part of the deal. It's a contract. An agreement between 2 parties wishing to do trade. If I release a piece of software and I find that the licence has been broken, I know that, under the law, I have some course of action to try and fix the situation. Without the licence in place, there is no framework of agreement should a dispute arise.
Sounds pretty simple, doesn't it?
___
Why MS doesn't want to do this. (Score:3)
Absolutely not. In an earlier era many programs (early unixices and CPM for example) were distributed as source instead of or in addition to binaries, without even attempting to be Free Software. Those two examples were just as proprietary as MS-Windows and MacOS are today, but the source code was readily available to licensees. There are still cases like that today, Star Office comes to mind as a program you can get the source to but is not Free Software, I am sure we could all think of dozens and dozens of examples. Most people will obey the license agreement, and those that don't can and should be sued and ruined whenever detected. Civil society is impossible if the majority are dishonest, and it behooves a society to recognise that fact.
That said, one of my first examples probably explains why MS hates this idea and will fight tooth and nail against it - since the evidence indicates that they probably used the source code to CPM (which they held a license to at the time) to get MS-DOS 1.0 out in time to get that lucrative contract with IBM, and eventually kill off Digital Research, the creators of that code. Ah, the irony of it all.
An example... (Score:4)
Bill Gates will say just about anything to protect the Windows monopoly and is playing to the court of (non technical) public opinion mostly these days. He'd also tell you that Windows is 'open' if you asked - reminds me of that joke "How many Microsoft people does it take to change a lightbulb? None - they redefine dark as light".
Death? Nice term, that. (Score:4)
[WARNING: Rant follows. That I'm ending up writing this right after I wrote this very pro-Microsoft technical defense [kuro5hin.org] on Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] just makes me angrier.]
Death, eh? Exactly what kind of death are they referring to?
Perhaps they're talking about the infamous "Écran bleu de la mort", better known as the Blue Screen Of Death? Quite a few companies have been dying slow, ignomious deaths due to their inability to avoid these failures. Take Novell. It's the year 2000, and they still don't have a version of their Novell Client software that won't eventually and near-irrevocably cause to die(ooh!) some poor Windows 9x machine that just wants to connect to a Novell server.
Lets see now. We've got a Microsoft developer's impending death here...we've got the individual users' Win9x machines quite dead...Microsoft themselves? Hm, they're doing just fine. Not Dead Yet. Doing Just Fine. They sure seem to know how to add a core networking layer to Win9x; why should anybody else be able to?
Actually, why should anyone else be able to do anything without delivering unto Microsoft that which the stockholders demand? Using Windows 2000 to host your secure website means you've got to pay $3,000.00 to them for the right to do so. Sounds like any small business trying to sell a few t-shirts just got priced out of the market--oops, death of a little guy who suspiciously ain't Microsoft. Oh, I should be fair though. Microsoft doesn't require you to spend $3000.00 for a license; they'd be happy to just limit you to a small number of simultaneous purchases. That way, if your small business gets Slashdotted one day, and an unexpected number of people come in to buy some product, Windows 2000 will send your customers away, as you just didn't pay enough of a (protection) fee to Microsoft.
When your expensive server hardware running an expensive server operating system dies on customers because you didn't buy an expensive enough access license, lemme tell you, it ain't Microsoft who's hurting there. It ain't Microsoft who lost any sales--sure, that server may get wiped out and be replaced by Linux. But that's after that first sale. You might say Microsoft could at least experience some pain by loss of future sales, because either a) Some business(like yours) would crumble because it couldn't recoup their losses, or b) Some business(like yours) would never again buy a Microsoft server. The former posits yet another death--this time, again, of somebody Other Than Microsoft--but lets examine the latter. How easy is it to migrate away from Microsoft?
Not at all, and getting harder. Frontpage Extensions are an explicit play at tying the desktop OS to the server OS--make a business dependent on the integration, and reap the rewards when they go down in flames trying to live without it. Yes, Linux is getting support for Frontpage Extensions. But we have to wonder how long such cross platform compatibilities will be allowed--Microsoft's already banned interoperability with one file format on patent grounds(don't try to parse ASF if you're anyone else but MS; I suppose DOC is next).
The bottom line in my mind is that, when Microsoft starts talking about fighting to the death, they mean it--they've had no problem using their financial might to crush anyone who isn't convenient to them, and that appears to include their own customers, developers, and end users.
If there's one thing tragic here, it's that good, honestly respectible technical work gets disgraced because of its association to truly ugly business practices.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Disclosed Source != Open-Source (Score:4)
Computer source code is no different. If released in a non-Open-Source manner, it allows people to inspect code, but not copy it. New "features" in other programs are safe; they cannot be copied from the source (and even if they were, if all companies had to disclose their source it would be very easy to check for copied code).
Now, does Open-Source work in this way? The jury's still out on that one. My guess is that IP as we know it would likely cease to exist (it would still be there, but in a form very much unlike what we see IP as today). Other companies could copy Open-Source code, though by its nature they would have to be Open-Source as well in order to do this, so the company from which the code was copied could retaliate by copying some of the copier's code also. This very quickly becomes pointless.
Would it mean that software could not be sold? Absolutely not! This is what most suits, media, etc. don't get. It does mean shifting to a business model which is radically different from the proprietary models we see today. But that alone does not mean it is not possible. Consider this: the proprietary system works on a premise not too much unlike extortion; the user pays for permission to use the program, rather than the program itself. This is obviously not possible with Open-Source, since permission to use the program is implicit; if the software exists you have permission to use it.
However, there are other business models in the world today which could be adapted to be used for software. The one which will probably first be tried, even if it's the most annoying to end-users, is corporate sponsorship. This is what's used for television, radio, and most Websites. You do not pay for permission to watch TV or listen to radio. However, corporations pay for these shows' production, usually in return for advertising space.
Corporate sponsorship not your thing? Try consulting. A firm is paid to either develop completely new software (usually for a company which needs something) or to add new features to an existing piece of software. This is not as unprofitable as it may sound; many consultants make even more money than the highest-paid programmers as most "traditional" software companies (executives are another matter, of course, but executives don't code). Why would this work? Consider the postal service. It's cheap, and it gets the job done. But do you send really important packages through it? Not likely; you'll pay FedEx or UPS or some other delivery service to do it. Why? Because these services are faster and more reliable. The same is true for a consulting firm. Open-SOurce software is always evolving, but it does so in a more or less random way. You can simply not pay and wait for the features you need to evolve, but this will take a long time (and there's no guarantee the features you want will evolve anyway). You pay a consultant because you know the feature will make it into the software, and it will get there much faster than if it were simply coded by unpaid coders in their spare time.
There are other models. One popular idea is to have companies charge only for support. I'm not so sure this one is really all that viable, because not everyone needs or wants support. In the end you'd certainly make enough to fund the support efforts, but would you make enough to fund new programming? I'm not so sure. But this is just one model out of many; no model is appropriate in all cases.
But no matter how you slice it, there are plenty of business models which can be adapted to work with Open-Source software. And simply making companies disclose their source changes nothing at all, if you allow them to continue to keep their programs proprietary (as long as you keep the playing field level, that is, meaning all companies would have to disclose their source).
It's not really open source, people. (Score:4)
I suspect that MS is scared for three reasons:
Re:API != Source code (Score:4)
hit(nail, head); (Score:4)
No. That's exactly the problem.
Open Source is all about "better code" or "better security" or "faster development". Free Software is about the human (especially programmer) rights.
I don't understand why people keep trying to come up with ways that companies can release their source code "safely". What we (should) want isn't safe for companies. We want to take some power back from the Sun's, Microsoft's and Corel's of the world. Have access to the source code is just a feature. But the GPL enables a whole new "paradigm" (I don't usually like that word, but it's true here) where IP doesn't apply.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Our attempt at distributing non-free source (Score:4)
First, the program is distributed in a typical "shareware" fashion. You can download a free evaluation copy and try it out for 30 days. When the program is installed, you agree to a license that says you agree to purchase the program if you continue to use it after 30 days.
We released the source code in an effort to let people learn from it, and if willing, to contribute their code or fixes. During development, we (somewhat surprisingly) had a few requests from people for the source code, as they were curious about how an IRC client would work. We feel that releasing the source does not harm our business, but does help the development community, and potentially the dIRC community as a whole.
The license under which dIRC's source code is distributed states that you may compile the program for personal use. However, modified versions cannot be distributed unless we give written approval. The biggest reason for this is that we do not want multiple, incompatible versions of dIRC floating around on the Internet. You can check out the the license here [dragonmount.net].
In our case, having the source availible does not mean that our product is free. Dragonmount [dragonmount.net] still whole-heartedly ownes dIRC, but as with the car analogy, you can open it up, poke around, see how it works, make sure it is safe (security), put in a bigger engine (like a 289 in my 1966 mustang, rar!). But however you change your individual car, Ford motor company still owns the design.
This is not a troll (but slightly OT) (Score:4)
I realize that this is going to piss off a lot of /., but think about this. A few weeks ago there was a huge stink on /. about MS releasing the source of their version of Kerberos. Now, I know a lot of ppl were upset that MS modified it from the original, but that doesn't come into the point I'm trying to make (I don't think). What happened? /. readers began posting ways to 'get around' the license agreement, linked to sites which had published the source, and in fact on person posted it in its entirety. Some ppl posted it out of anger of the modifications, but most did it with a 'screw MS' mentality. There were arguments over whether or not MS still had any sort of IP rights over it since they had released it to the public, no matter what licensing agreement they had.
My point is this: /. clamors for MS to release the source of 'Project X' because it's only fair/right/their moral obligation. MS does so (believe me, it's not because of /. either), but tries to keep it as their own IP, proprietary, etc. They say 'You can't use any of this in your software, it belongs to us!' which is perfectly legal by copyright/IP law (AFAIK). /. users immediately jump MS case for trying something 'shady' or backhanded, when they are trying to protect what they consider their IP. Some /. readers (who are of course NAL) then say, by publishing it, its not even their IP anymore. It just seems to me that /. readers are very hypocritical when it comes to MS. MS does what is good for MS, and that's it. They don't release source if it is going to hurt them. Don't pretend for a moment that they are going to change. So quit railing against MS. I would love it if /. never posted another story about MS and just let them do what they are going to do.
as someone else's sig says: are you moderating because you agree or disagree, or because of quality?
Re:What's an API? (Score:4)
If Corel wanted feature X in Windows to use in WordPerfect, say a rainbow scrolling title bar, they don't have the option to add that to the GDI in Windows, but if Microsoft wanted this for Office they could walk over to the GDI department and get it added, then release a new version of GDI on the Office CD; still preventing WordPerfect from having it because you've got to buy Office first. Big advantage. And they don't have to document the new API until later or not at all: it's not part of a Windows release.
These techniques I'm sure have been used many times in the past.
Competing with your app on top of somebody else's closed software platform is a losing proposition, API documentation or not. You're OK until the platform vendor decides he wants to make his own version of your app. The best you can hope for then is to be bought out or allowed to survive, otherwise you'll be fighting for your life as he uses the platform, which he owns and you don't, to his advantage.
Thank God for free software.
API != Source code (Score:5)
This is key. The Microsoft argument that opening their API's would kill them depends on the confusion between API and source code. All they're being asked to do in reality is provide the world with the information it should have had. After all, providing API's is the reason operating systems exist! They should always be made public, or there's no reason to have an operating system, since the application programmers will end up having to write their own interfaces.
Microsoft is just being asked to play fair and do their job correctly. It's not an onerous request!
-Joe
Yes, it _does_ (Score:5)
I'm getting pretty sick and tired of hearing about license this, license that, GPL license, BSD license, etc. I can't believe that so many people here on slashdot can sometimes be so optimistic and unreasonable. Who here really believes that simply by attaching a license to software, everyone will politely follow the terms of that license to the letter?
Welcome to the real world - people don't give a damn about licenses. If metallica put a so-called "license" on their next MP3 that said you had to buy their CD to listen to it, no one here would change their piracy practices one bit. If someone sees something they can profit off of and get away with, they'll take the opportunity in a flash.
In fact, I'd be surprised in Windows didn't have any code either from GPLed programs or heavily inspired by them. We've already seen all their other illegal and immoral business practices, and such a transgression would be nothing to them. And how would they ever be caught? If anyone here honestly puts that below them, they probably don't belong on a site like this.
I just filled out a job application yesterday that asked many questions about my opinion of people, among other topics. Questions such as, "Do you think that if an employee thought that they could steal an item and get away with it, would they do so?" and "You see a customer who repeatedly buys items with gift certificates. You think nothing of it until you see that the customer is friends with an employee who authorizes gift certificates. What do you do?" and many, many more about how trusting I am, and whether I think people would steal things if they had such and such an opportunity.
I answered every one of those questions honestly, which basically summized to my saying that I think people are evil and lie, cheat, and steal every chance they get if it benefits themselves. And while doing it, I couldn't help but think of people probably doing exactly that on the same application, on questions like "How trustworthy do you consider yourself?" and "How well do you get along well with both colleages? Strangers?"
So, to get back on topic, you can't release the source code and expect people to pay simple because the software has a license. If it's really useful, you may get a couple bucks, but the more people want it and would be willing to pay, the more likely they are to pirate it. Either provide additional services to those who pay - either more features, or tech support like the linux vendors, etc - or go ahead and give it out free.
[/RANT]
because any new feature would be copied (Score:5)
Personally, I think this would be a good thing, as it would tend to check "featuritis" that is so rampant. Programs would cease competing on features and start competing on UI, stability, security, etc. Unfortuantely, the software business (I'm talking non-games) exists now on featuritis to sell upgrades and I don't see the software companies moving away from that.
---
Of Course Not. (Score:5)
An example of "Open but not free" would be the Thomas and Finney calculus text that happens to be on my desk.
In this case, none of the *ideas* in the book are protected. I can use any equation in the book for any purpose. However, I can't just take T and F's text, munge it electronicly and republish it.
There's nothing to stop me from writing my own calculus text (excepting of course my incomplete knowledge of the subject) but I would have to prove that the organization and presentation in the text is original and not just a rearrangement of T and F.
So, I reason you can protect source in the same manner as books are protected. Protecting ideas is another matter. The only way I can think of to simultaneously publish and protect an idea is (shudder) to patent it.
BTW, if you have a copy of T and F, look in the index for "Whales". It's good for a laugh.