荔园在线
荔园之美，在春之萌芽，在夏之绽放，在秋之收获，在冬之沉淀
[回到开始]
[上一篇][下一篇]
发信人: "Roy Guo" <roy@szu.edu.cn>, 信区: Linux
标 题: Why We Don't Want the Windows Source Code
发信站: ShenZhen University (Sun Dec 5 19:40:21 1999)
转信站: ShenZhen-University!bbs.szu.edu.cn!not-for-mail
出 处: 210.39.3.71
Why We Don't Want the Windows
Source Code
Apr 15, 1999, 08:14 UTC (37 Talkbacks) (Other stories by Nathan Myers)
Copyright 1999 by Nathan Myers
http://www.cantrip.org/
All Rights Reserved.
Microsoft is widely reported to have failed to present a convincing case
against
charges of using their (otherwise-legal) monopoly position illegally, to
stifle
competition. Microsoft apparently agrees, despite its protestations to
the
contrary, as they are reported to be involved in settlement talks with
the
Department of Justice and the states' Attorneys General. The news media
are
already speculating on what remedies might be appropriate.
We are starting to see articles (and even petitions) calling for
Microsoft to be
forced to "open" the Windows source code. While superficially appealing,
I
argue here that this, like the 1985 consent agreement, would be another
slap on
the wrist for Microsoft. I believe that, despite what they might argue
behind
closed doors, a source-code publication order is really in Microsoft's
own
estimation the best-case outcome of the trial.
Why would opening the Windows source code fail to
benefit us? First, as in the case of Netscape
Communicator, a large fraction of the code is bound
under non-disclosure agreements, and would not be
opened under any settlement or court order.
Furthermore, the remaining secret code would be the
most _interesting_ fraction: device drivers, codecs,
and patented compression code. It is primarily the
widespread use of incompatible devices that
interferes with easy installation of alternative operating
systems, so freeing the Windows code would be little
help to us in the Free Software community, or to
anyone else.
Second, with such a large fraction of the code remaining under wraps,
users
would be unable to build their own releases of the system. This would
leave
Microsoft in the same monopoly position, but, having complied with their
new
consent agreement, immune to prosecution. At best, the code might help
provide
guidance to such projects as WINE, but only if the code were not
encumbered
in such a way as to add a new danger of contamination.
Finally, going "open-source" might ultimately benefit Microsoft as
companies
which have committed to use of their software would end up sending them
free
fixes for their numerous bugs.
What do I suggest instead? Microsoft is able to attack new markets in
part
through using, or threatening to use, their huge war-chest account built
up by
monopoly control of their existing markets. Our best-case scenario for
the
outcome of the trial would be the simplest: start with a _fine_.
Microsoft is reported to have something like $20 billion dollars in the
bank. If in
fact the court determines that this money was obtained by illegally
exploiting their
(otherwise-legal) monopoly position, then the court may simply and
legally
confiscate it. That money, placed in grants foundations, could fund or
educate
quite a lot of Free Software developers, even after the lawyers took
their cut.
I see no reason to stop with (say) a $20 billion fine. In addition, since
Microsoft
still holds a monopoly in their traditional business areas, operating
systems and
office applications, and it would be demonstrated that they cannot be
trusted not
to abuse that monopoly, the court should break up the company into at
least
three parts: e.g., operating systems, office applications, and "other".
Each new
company's products would be allowed to use only publicly-documented
properties of published interfaces of components it uses that are
supplied by
other companies.
Since a requirement to publish detailed specifications allows far too
much room
for outright fraud -- how accurately have they documented the functions
they
_meant_ to be public? -- the form of publication should be source code.
In other
words, they should be forced to release the source code not because that
source
code is intrinsically valuable, or because they don't (or pretend not to)
want to
release it, but because that is the only form in which we can trust they
have
actually fulfilled their documentation obligations connected with the
breakup of
the company.
Nathan Myers is best known for his work on the ISO/ANSI
C++ Language standard. He has used C++ since 1986, and
GNU/Linux since 1994. His previous publications have
appeared in Dr. Dobb's Journal and C++ Report. Contact him
via his web page, http://www.cantrip.org/.
[回到开始]
[上一篇][下一篇]
荔园在线首页 友情链接：深圳大学 深大招生 荔园晨风BBS S-Term软件 网络书店