On TV.com: 24 Movie is On the Clock
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

October 22nd, 2007

Late night baseball games, Microsoft concessions evoke big yawns at open source water cooler

Posted by Paula Rooney @ 2:26 pm

Categories: Distributions, FOSS, GPL, Legal, Linux, Linux Desktop OS, Linux Server OS, Patents, Red Hat, Software Licensing, Standards, documentation

Tags: Game, Microsoft Corp., Open Source, Paula Rooney

Microsoft’s agreement to provide full technical documentation – and lower royalties – on its software protocols is a big yawn to the open source community, developers and consultants say.

No surprise. Since its battle with the European commission began almost a decade ago, web services have rendered such protocol licensing a dinosaur of the past. And besides, the licensing terms are of no use to the GPL community, observers say.

“Samba reversed engineered [Microsoft’s] SMB [protocol]. With this ruling maybe someone can go through and improve Samba a little but that’s at the network file sharing level and we’re not writing code to that level. We need web service APIs, not protocol at the network transport level,” maintains Dave Gynn, director of enterprise tools and frameworks at Optaros, a Boston area open source consultancy. “We always integrate with other systems but don’t do it at protocol level. “

Gynn said it may help to reduce the technical and cost barriers to some commercial firms but “there’s still patents on it.”

It will benefit purveyors of proprietary software but not open source developers, agreed Michael Goulde, analyst of open source strategy at Forrester Research, Cambridge, Mass.
“Some open source developers believe that Microsoft should make its protocols available for use royalty free. In some cases, there are open source license restrictions that make it not possible for the software to include Microsoft licensed code – because you can’t downstream the license. So, unless Microsoft goes way beyond what it has agreed with the EU to do, only a subset of open source developers will have much interest. They’ll continue reverse engineering Microsoft protocols and doing the best they can. “

John McCreesh, marketing lead at OpenOffice.org, said it has no benefit to the open source office suite. And he said reports that Microsoft’s recently enacted MCPP patent license makes any benefit null and void. “So the EU has laboured for three years to produce this particular “ridiculous mouse,” McCreesh said.

Paula RooneyPaula Rooney is a Boston-based writer who has followed the tech industry for almost two decades. See her full profile and disclosure of her industry affiliations.

Email Paula Rooney

Subscribe to Linux and Open Source via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 5 Talkback(s)
No, he's right
smbfs is not a reverse-engineered system; it's simply the userspace component of Samba and unique to the UNIX-like operating systems. It's the protocol (SMB) that was reverse-engineered, TECHNICALLY ... (Read the rest)
Posted by: DarkPhoenixFF4 Posted on: 10/24/07 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Only when it's of NO USE ....  kd5auq | 10/22/07
Samba did not reverse engineer smbfs ...  MisterMiester | 10/22/07
RE:Samba did reverse engineer SMB  n0neXn0ne | 10/22/07
No, he's right  DarkPhoenixFF4 | 10/24/07
What do we mean by RAND  galoppini | 10/23/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here