Microsoft Working with Open Source In the Web Services Space
By Priya George
Microsoft has promised not to enforce patents for technology in Web services specifications, which are used in connecting applications in Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA) and other forms of standards-based distributed computing. The Open Specification Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement specifications through a simplified method of sharing of technical assets, while recognising the legitimacy of intellectual property, says Microsoft.
The company's Open Specification Promise covers nearly three-dozen Web services specifications that contain Microsoft-contributed technology. The company's promise targets developers and customers working with commercial or open-source software.
To help promote widespread adoption of Web services, which play an important part in how Microsoft ties its software to its own products and other applications, Microsoft said no one needs to sign or even reference anything in using the technology. "Anyone is free to implement the specifications as they wish, and do not need to make mention of or reference to Microsoft," the company said. The company’s promise does not apply to work that goes beyond the scope of the covered specification.
Mike Milinkovich, the Executive Director of the Eclipse Foundation, said "it was particularly interesting to read the community feedback and realize that Microsoft has been consciously and conscientiously working with the open source community to develop this document. That's an important step forward for them, as it demonstrates they believe the open source community is now integral to the broad adoption of technologies they care about." He also added that this was an important development for Eclipse's Higgins project which is leading the way in identity management.
Red Hat also endorsed the move as Mark Webbink Deputy General Counsel Red Hat said, “Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications in response to our comments.”
Prominent open source attorney Lawrence Rosen, of technology law firm Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, said “I see Microsoft’s introduction of the OSP as a good step by Microsoft to further enable collaboration between software vendors and the open source community. This OSP enables the open source community to implement these standard specifications without having to pay any royalties to Microsoft or sign a license agreement. I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses.”
RL 'Bob' Morgan Chair, Middleware Architecture Committee for Education (MACE) Senior Technology Architect, University of Washington said, “The Microsoft open specification promise is a very positive development. In the university and open source communities, we need to know that we can implement specifications freely. This promise will make it easier for us to implement Web Services protocols and information cards and for them to be used in our communities.”
The open source-friendly terms of the promise notably contrast with those under which Microsoft has offered to license Windows communications protocols, which effectively exclude open source projects, according to critics. Microsoft was obliged to license the protocols under landmark antitrust remedies imposed by the European Commission.
The promise is different in several ways from the Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) terms applying to the Windows communications protocols, as well from as the promise given by Microsoft when it helped develop the Web Services standards in the first place, according to standards attorney Andy Updegrove. For one thing, the promise is 'self-executing', meaning the organisation implementing the protocol doesn't have to do anything other than stay within the conditions of the covenant, Updegrove said.
"There is no need for sublicensing," Microsoft wrote in the FAQ accompanying the promise. "This promise is directly applicable to you and everyone else who wants to use it. Accordingly, your distributees, customers and vendors can directly take advantage of this same promise, and have the exact same protection that you have."
Such conditions are "a key requirement of many of the most popular open source licenses", Updegrove wrote in an analysis published on his Standards Blog. Another difference is that all the terms of the covenant are out in the open, instead of being selectively disclosed, Updegrove pointed out.
Microsoft shied away from giving an explicit opinion on the terms' compatibility with the GNU General Public License (GPL).
"Because the GPL is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can't give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specification(s)," the FAQ states.
Nevertheless, the promise appears to be a positive move to encourage the use of standards, according to Updegrove and other industry observers. It also appears to be an attempt to reach out to those developing free, or open-source, software. “From a first read it looks like it is an attempt to treat free software in a non-discriminatory way,” said Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation, adding that his group will look at Microsoft’s statement carefully.
Microsoft’s relationship with the open-source community has been strained, at times. In 2001, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer famously described Linux as a “cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.” Microsoft competes with open-source software such as versions of the Linux operating system offered by Red Hat, Novell, and others, particularly in the server room. On that note you’ll have to wait and see how effective this promise will be in the long run.
Besides, James Governor (Industry Analyst with RedMonk) would now like to see what IBM will now do to up the ante. "You could argue IBM covenants are not a bluff, but I have yet to see anything as clear and domain-specific as Microsoft's new policy. If there is one war I will sign up to enthusiastically its the war for open standards, unencumbered by potential chilling effects. So come on IBM lets see you really nail it.
