Story: Microsoft's licence to kill

• 
• 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your statement.

If you read over the license agreement, there are two important issues:

1. The license fee
2. The non-sharing code condition

The first part (license fee) is a problem not because they charge a fee. Microsoft is allowed to charge a fee for the license, and most would agree that is fair. Other companies charge money to view their API's (though some, such as Apple, do not).

What is under dispute is the amount of the license fee. If the fee is $500, that's fine. It's enough that any small business (or group) could afford. Microsoft charges $ for the license - you can see the license itself here:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/F/9/E/F9E7224E-F673-4E7E-A6F1-14ED283F8030/EU_WSPPAgmt_012505.pdf

The amount in question is $50,000 (see Page 17) - far more than most individuals, let alone small business or groups, could afford.

By doing so, Microsoft is saying "OK, you can view the API's, but we're going to make it so expensive that few people can do it."

This goes in the spirit of the ruling from the EU, which is to allow open competition with Microsoft's server API (aka - allow a competitor to make something like Samba or allow their own product to fully communicate with a Windows server). The point isn't to let only a few companies do it, but allow many companies the chance to counteract Microsoft's monopoly abuses (of which they have been found guilty of by both US and EU courts).

Part 2 is the ability to share code. Suppose I purchase the API, and I'm on the Samba project, which aims to create an Open Source Windows Server compliant software. This way, I could put a Linux, *BSD, OS X, Sun or Windows server and be sure that it works the way I want, is free of hidden insecure code, or just competes with MS products.

However, Microsoft's license has a poison pill. They say "OK, so even if you buy the license, you can not share any code you create with your licensed API with others unless they've also licensed the API". This is like saying "OK, I'll let you open the hood of a car so you can make carburetors for it, but if you share how to make the carburetors, we'll sue you." I'm not sharing the API's themselves, just my code that uses them - it's up to the third party to figure that out on their own. (See page 4.)

This license would directly prevent any Open Source project from ever using Microsoft's server API - which again flies right in the face of the EU's attempt to remedy Microsoft's monopoly practices.

So the EU is right on this. MS was told to release the API information - not to license it, not to make conditions, but release the information. MS is trying to get around their condition with conditions that the EU does not agree with, and if they continue down this path, the EU is certainly within their power to make them pay for it.

Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread