On Friday the EC rejected Microsoft's proposed server interoperability licence, saying it had concerns that the licence excluded open-source vendors and charged unjustifiably high royalty fees.
ZDNet UK examined a copy of Microsoft's proposed licensing agreement to see the source of the EC's concerns.
First of all, why is this licence necessary?
Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking EU competition law by "leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players".
OK, so Microsoft broke the law and was found guilty. What's the punishment?
Well, a fine of 497 million euros (AU$833 million) for a start. But the more important part of the punishment is the software giant has to open its protocols to competitors, to help them produce software that interoperates with Windows, both on the client and the server side.
No bird then?
No, nobody's going to prison. Let's call this community service.
Great, so I get a licence to use Microsoft's interoperability APIs in my software and go right ahead, right?
Not quite. Microsoft's draft copy of the licence requires you to pay royalties.
So they're asking to be paid for their community service?
Effectively, yes.
OK, so just what does the licence cover?
Implementation of the Microsoft Work Group Sever Protocol Program, or WSPP. This program comprises two types of software: operating systems that implement Microsoft Windows file and print protocols; and operating systems that implement Windows protocols for administration of users and groups, for things like directory services.
So any operating system that will let me access files on Microsoft servers, or provide file or printing services for Windows PCs or servers, or any operating system that will let me do any authentication, authorisation or directory services in an environment where I have Windows servers?
Right.
But surely this will only affect companies writing operating system software?
Directly, yes, but the royalties will be passed on.
Continued ...
2%
4%
At least, until we get software patents, there's always the chance of reverse engineering. It's thanks to those efforts that we have things like Samba and Open Office keeping Microsoft on their toes having to actually work to compete.
Now what was that about open standards compatibility - LDAP, Kerberos, all this nice things that should mean you don't have to us a Microsoft proprietry protocol anyway?