Microsoft opens up APIs, file formats and documentation to all
No, it's not a dream. Now you're awake, this will be all over the newswire... http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-21ExpandInteroperabil... Their new interoperability principles (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/default.mspx) include such useful pieces of information as "Microsoft commits that all the protocols [..] will be made openly available to the developer community in a non-discriminatory fashion", "Microsoft will indicate [..] which protocols are covered by Microsoft patents and will license all of these patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, at low royalty rates" and "Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols." What does this mean? Time will tell, but the news sounds good for both business and Open Source developers. An interesting move! Hats off to the EU. Craig
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> wrote:
What does this mean? Time will tell, but the news sounds good for both business and Open Source developers. An interesting move! Hats off to the EU.
I agree that this is very significant and I too noticed the bit about the EU - we have a lot to thank them for I think. Microsoft would have needed to do this eventually but it probably sped things up 10 years. The biggest danger to open source now is patent trolls who own patents but no products so have nothing to worry about in suing. SCO has risen from the dead but are a rather harmless zombie I believe. -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
"Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols."
Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Bruce Kingsbury <zcat(a)zcat.geek.nz> wrote:
"Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols."
Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.
Didn't pick that up. Full paragraph reads as such: Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license. NB Standard disclaimer of my opinions do not necessarily reflect the opionion of my employer. -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
"Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols."
Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.
If you ascribe value to software patents, then it seems fair to say "If you are going to use this commercially, you can license our patents under RAND terms: a free card is given to non-commercial use." I guess the "WHO PAYS?" question is, does the author have to pay, or does the distributor? If I write some software (OK, lets be more realistic here. If Perry writes some software) using these specs, release it non-commercially, and Red Hat/Canonical/whoever want to include it in their commercially supported distribution, do they each have to pay the license? Does that grant the right for continued use down the line? I'm not sure how this could be resolved while still working within patent law. Craig
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> wrote:
If you ascribe value to software patents, then it seems fair to say "If you are going to use this commercially, you can license our patents under RAND terms: a free card is given to non-commercial use."
I guess the "WHO PAYS?" question is, does the author have to pay, or does the distributor? If I write some software (OK, lets be more realistic here. If Perry writes some software) using these specs, release it non-commercially, and Red Hat/Canonical/whoever want to include it in their commercially supported distribution, do they each have to pay the license? Does that grant the right for continued use down the line?
I'm not sure how this could be resolved while still working within patent law.
There are two parts to this last question: - Microsoft can choose to use it's patents (but not someone elses that they license for themselves) however they like including free for commercial use. That is up to them if they think it makes commercial sense or not - are patent laws worthwhile for software. That is another whole discussion. -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 03:37:09PM -0500, Craig Box wrote:
"Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols."
Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.
If you ascribe value to software patents, then it seems fair to say "If you are going to use this commercially, you can license our patents under RAND terms: a free card is given to non-commercial use."
The GNU GPL does not allow you to distribute software (licensed under the GPL of course) if you can't give it to everyone on the same terms that you got it. This means if the software is covered by a patent, even if you're covered for the patent you can't give it to anyone unless everyone is also covered for it. John
The GNU GPL does not allow you to distribute software (licensed under the GPL of course) if you can't give it to everyone on the same terms that you got it. This means if the software is covered by a patent, even if you're covered for the patent you can't give it to anyone unless everyone is also covered for it.
True. My mistake. EU's response is somewhat damning: "The commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability," the commission said. "Nonetheless, the commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability." Craig
On 22/02/2008, Craig Box <craig(a)dubculture.co.nz> wrote:
"Microsoft will covenant not to sue open source developers for development and non-commercial distribution of implementations of these Open Protocols."
Once again, Microsoft do their very best to undermine the GPL by discriminating between 'commercial' and 'non-commercial' distribution.
If you ascribe value to software patents, then it seems fair to say "If you are going to use this commercially, you can license our patents under RAND terms: a free card is given to non-commercial use."
I've jusr re-read GPL2 and associated FAQ '.. if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies ..' I guess the "WHO PAYS?" question is, does the author have to pay, or
does the distributor? If I write some software (OK, lets be more realistic here. If Perry writes some software) using these specs, release it non-commercially, and Red Hat/Canonical/whoever want to include it in their commercially supported distribution, do they each have to pay the license? Does that grant the right for continued use down the line?
By my understanding Redhat would be the only one paying. The author didn't charge Redhat for it, so they're exempt. If whitebox linux take that code and further distribute it 'non-commercially', they don't have to pay either. That's how it ought to work. IANAL. I'm not sure where canonical would stand; Are they distributing ubuntu 'commercially' if they give it away for free and hope to profit on commercial support later? Redhat needing to pay doesn't appear to be a GPL problem either; in the same way that having to pay tax on their annual revenue isn't a GPL issue. if Redhat want to be exempt from paying Microsoft for a patent license, all they need to do is stop charging for their distribution.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Bruce Kingsbury <zcat(a)zcat.geek.nz> wrote:
Redhat needing to pay doesn't appear to be a GPL problem either; in the same way that having to pay tax on their annual revenue isn't a GPL issue. if Redhat want to be exempt from paying Microsoft for a patent license, all they need to do is stop charging for their distribution.
I don't think it is that simple. Commerical means many things - e.g. Telecom only charge you a monthly fee and you wouldn't call them non-commercial. Courts would look at the whole business. -- Web: http://wand.net.nz/~iam4/ Blog: http://iansblog.jandi.co.nz
participants (4)
-
Bruce Kingsbury -
Craig Box -
Ian McDonald -
John R. McPherson