Samba Licenses, Microsoft Benefits
|
More than three years after delivering its harsh antitrust ruling against Microsoft, the European Union got its way. Be careful what you ask for. |
Yesterday, Dec. 20, Microsoft quietly announced that it had licensed server protocols to Samba. The protocol licensing agreement is much bigger than it first appears. The agreement is simply unprecedented, because Microsoft protocol technology and documentation will be made available for use in open-source software.
More importantly, Samba and other companies licensing the protocols will likely spread Microsoft technology further throughout the enterprise. Protocol licensees are willing carriers of a plague that could undo them.
First some background: This is a day I never expected to see. The most contentious issue between the European Union's Competition Commission and Microsoft was the licensing of protocols for use in free software. It's a concession Microsoft seemingly wouldn't make without a gun pointed to its head. In September, Europe's Court of First Instance pointed that gun, in a stinging appellate ruling that upheld nearly all portions of the 2004 antitrust ruling against Microsoft.
As I explained in September, the ruling meant Microsoft would license the protocols and for use in open-source software. In October, the European Commission declared victory over Microsoft, ensuring that protocols would be immediately available for licensing.
But yesterday's agreement, while a direct result of the antitrust ruling, started long before the Court of First Instance ruling. Samba and Microsoft already had discussed server protocol licensing, which had some impact on Microsoft's process with the European Commission. Samba specifically requested some aspects of the agreement, such as disclosure of Microsoft patents.
Technically, Microsoft isn't licensing the protocols directly to Samba, but through the newly created PFIF (Protocol Freedom Information Foundation).
Important links related to this announcement:
- Protocol Freedom Information Foundation
- Protocol Licensing Agreement (PDF)
- Microsoft Workgroup Server Protocol Program
- Samba's PFIF agreement explanation
- Samba's Microsoft licensing agreement history
- Microsoft's Samba licensing agreement history
From one perspective, the licensing agreement is a blow to Microsoft. Unlike IBM, Microsoft treats its intellectual property as a competitive differentiator. Microsoft generally licenses technology under two circumstances: when partners can connect back to the company's stuff or where Microsoft offers no real products (this is usually stuff from Microsoft Research). Microsoft most certainly doesn't make a habit of licensing technology that would enable direct competition—and this is particularly true of open-source software. The licensing terms are fairly cheap compared to Microsoft's R&D investment and potential revenue loss for some of the company's software.
Microsoft has at least four fundamental problems with open source:
- competition with Microsoft software;
- commercialization of open-source software by vanquished Microsoft competitors;
- the open-source business model's threat to Microsoft's software licensing approach; and
- open-source and Microsoft licensing models don't really mix (think oil and water.
But from another perspective, there are more benefits to Microsoft from the protocol licensing program, and they are absolutely huge. In the long term, I predict that Microsoft and not protocol licensees will be the program's biggest beneficiary. Shall I repeat that statement?
Microsoft already has entrenched position in the data center and on the desktop. There is deep feature integration along the desktop-to-server stack, and Microsoft controls the major directory service. The stack and plumbing, as in Active Directory, already are in place. Microsoft's position is established.
The protocol licensing program will help further standardize the enterprise on Microsoft technologies, around which third parties—even open-source developers—revolve. Windows succeeded for many reasons, but one important one: The operating system set the standards for which third parties developed. I predict that the server protocol program will facilitate similar situation for Microsoft enterprise software, and that's a process that's already well underway.
Something else, maybe bigger: improved interoperability. There's some presumption that interoperability problems only hurt developers like Samba. Microsoft suffers, too, because the company's software is used in data centers with Linux or Unix. Microsoft usually gets the blame for interoperability problems.
The protocol licensing agreement assures that Samba and other developers will tackle the interoperability problems. Microsoft will gain huge competitive and customer-relations benefits from interoperability improvements, without doing all the heavy work. Protocol licensees, particularly open-source developers, will work for Microsoft in the sense that their interoperability improvements will benefit the company.
Related Posts:
- Samba Gains Legal Access to Microsoft Network File Protocols, Linux-Watch, Dec. 21, 2007
- The EU: Microsoft's New Taskmaster, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 22, 2007
- What Microsoft's EU Ruling Means to You, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 19, 2007
- EU Ruling: A Reporter's Notebook, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 18, 2007
- The European Drama Unfolds, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft Employees React to EU Appeals Decision, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Stunning Court Defeat, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Antitrust Cases Stand in Judgment, Microsoft Watch, Sept. 10, 2007
- Did Microsoft's Consent Decree Benefit You?, Microsoft Watch, Aug. 31, 2007
- Search This, Google!, Microsoft Watch, June 26, 2007
- Microsoft Will Modify Vista Search, Microsoft Watch, June 20, 2007
- And There Was One, Microsoft Watch, March 8, 2007
- Microsoft Competitors' 'Wow' Moment, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 26, 2007
- Microsoft Resubmits Technical Documents to the EU, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 23, 2006
- Microsoft's Antitrust Control Problem, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 22, 2006
- Who You Gonna Call? Trustbusters!, Nov. 17, 2006
- Interoperability: Is Microsoft All Talk?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 15, 2006
Comments (15)
Joe,
Was this done through some existing program that is on the IP web site (www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/default.mspx) or something new? MS has been licensing technology for some time. Or has MS been selective with who they share it. Even though the means to get the license is there would they not allow open source to license it before today or before the EU ruling?
www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/protocols/default.mspx
Is that what they are referring to, or is this something outside that program?
Posted by hynd | December 21, 2007 2:54 PM
Or did the open source not like the agreement of the license until today?
Posted by hynd | December 21, 2007 3:00 PM
nynd wrote: "Was this done through some existing program that is on the IP web site."
This protocol licensing program is for workgroup servers is a result of the EU ruling. Link: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/protocols/wspp/wspp.mspx
Joe
Posted by Joe | December 21, 2007 3:16 PM
Typical 'Softies', always chanting victory.
Posted by n0neXn0ne | December 21, 2007 4:36 PM
Yes, this deal will spread Microsoft-originated technology even more widely. No, it will not strengthen Microsoft's control over the world.
Much of that control derived from the fact that Microsoft could change the specs at any time. And with SMB/CIFS, it has done so several times. Each time, third parties trying to stay compatible have been left scrambling. This made their products look bad, and so the customers were more likely to stick with Microsoft-only products.
But not any more. Now that Samba can claim official Microsoft backing for its work, any attempt by them to move the goalposts in future will backfire. Customers will be just as likely to blame the incompatibilies on Microsoft, not on Samba.
In short, the creation of an open-source implementation of SMB/CIFS means that it is now effectively an open standard. This is true whether Microsoft likes it or not.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | December 21, 2007 4:51 PM
Lawrence D'Oliveirohas has it exactly right. Companies that don't use SMB aren't going to start because of this, and it won't make any difference to those who already use SMB, except that they can start using SAMBA clients (like Mac OS X) with confidence.
This is a big loser for Microsoft.
Posted by Sloe Moe | December 21, 2007 4:58 PM
Joe, the IP website and offerings have been there. Was there a change to the offerings once the EU made the ruling? I’m trying to make a connection between the EU ruling MS having the offering there for some time. And what the deal made yesterday has to do with it all.
It was not as if the ruling was made then the IP program and then website.
That is way I'm thinking it was just the agreement between SAMBA and MS was finalized yesterday. This agreement does fall under some program listed on the IP website that was there for some time now.
I’m just trying to make it clear that the offering for Protocol licensing from MS has been there for a while knowing that the IP website has been around for a while. It is not as if MS as of yesterday just started to do this. What they did using that IP program was make a deal with SAMBA.
Anyone can get the protocol from MS it is not as if they wont let you. That is why I asked if they would not let the open source people have it. Just pony up the money sign the paper and off you go. I think in the beginning SAMBA did not like the paper or the price on that paper MS wanted them to sign.
On last question was this deal/agreement with SAMBA or PFIF? If it was PFIF does that mean anyone in open source can get it not just SAMBA?
Posted by hynd | December 21, 2007 7:04 PM
Sorry MS loses. This means 500 dollar nas now become small business servers.
Please note samba 4 merges ADS into the normal Linux LDAP setup.
So ADS just becomes part of Linux all platform pluming. Really this creates more problems for MS that it cures. Server license cost reduced. Linux having central servers. Now this makes Linux desktops simpler to integrate into MS networks. Basically nothing good. Other problems you could see stuff like kontact going head to head with outlook. Market war here we come.
Posted by oiaohm | December 21, 2007 9:19 PM
Joe says:
It's a concession Microsoft seemingly wouldn't make without a gun pointed to its head.
@Joe:
Assuming Microsoft's supreme talent of continued market domination is intact, I would strongly disagree that this could be considered a win for Microsoft. I would suggest that if it was to be considered a win for them, they would have already thought of it and done it by now.
What is holding back the spread of Linux-based operating systems on the desktop is the so-called Catch-22: Mainstream applications won't be ported to Linux until there is a wide-spread market for it. And yet, Linux-based operating systems won't become wide-spread until mainstream applications are ported to them. Add in the many different distros that further fragment the thing called "Linux-based operating systems", which is both a strength (choice, and survival of the fittest) and a weakness (lack of one dominant target for application vendors), and that Catch-22 becomes even more difficult to get past.
And so adoption by Linux-based operating systems into the corporate world in which Windows pretty much dominates depends on the ability of Samba to get to Windows shares and printers, OpenOffice.org to read and write MS Office documents, and Thunderbird+IMAP4 and/or Evolution to access Exchange email systems. So far, those paths are dicey. And regardless of what the supporters of those applications may say (and I am among them, one of two Ubuntu desktop users in a desktop/office world run on Windows), it takes a pioneering spirit and a lot of Linux/Unix experience to make it work. Most people don't have the time, inclination, and sense of adventure that is needed. To get past the current microscopic desktop market penetration of Linux-based operating systems, much smoother (i.e. one-click foolproof) integration with the currently-dominant Microsoft Windows world is needed. Reverse engineering of protocols and data formats has produced great results, but not great enough.
Fool-proof smooth-as-silk integration of Linux-based operating systems with Windows clients and servers would accelerate the adoption of those Linux-based operating systems. OR, it would make Microsoft's licensing fees much more friendly to businesses. Either way, Microsoft knows that this will drastically reduce their future monopoly stranglehold.
But hey, if I'm right, I don't know why anyone would cry over this. It's not like Gates or Balmer will ever miss a meal. They've done well and had their day, and 99.999% of the market is a stellar accomplishment. It's just that getting that remaining 0.001% will cost them more than even they can afford. Maybe even the entire company.
Posted by Brian | December 21, 2007 9:21 PM
If this solves an enterprise integration problem for Linux, then it's still a win for Linux. Some may think it's a win to for Micro$oft, but I wonder why Micro$oft isn't celebrating. Maybe THEY don't see it as a win for themselves.
In any case, I think this will make it easier to bring Linux desktops into Windows-dominated enterprise situations. This is good.
Posted by Maddog | December 22, 2007 8:40 AM
Joe, I think youve rather missed the point on this one.
Microsoft are ACTUALLY obeying the law. Granted late, but FINALLY.
Is this a sea-change in company attitude?
---* Bill
Posted by Bill Buchan | December 22, 2007 10:27 AM
Obviously, Samba thinks its worth paying Ten Thousand dollars for, and the people that make that very good product, usually know what they are doing.
Also, once its paid for, its a legal contract. Which gives Samba the right to sue for damages, should it not work, get changed without notification and documentation. This will make it easier for businesses to migrate to Linux and BSD.
Posted by chips | December 22, 2007 12:55 PM
Joe:
Your analysis is interesting, but I, too, wonder if it is complete.
Yes, Microsoft will get interoperability benefits while offering an integrated stack that open source has not been able to offer, but how many more people will use Microsoft because of this increased interoperability? One could also say that open source will gain interoperability benefits,INCLUDING access to Microsoft's integrated stack.
From my perspective, lowering the barriers will probably help open source more than Microsoft, because the potential to gain market share is bigger for open source than for Microsoft. True, this may help Microsoft desktop software function in enterprises with Unix/Linux/BSD servers, but this cuts both ways. If I could run the specialty software I need in an open source environment, I would switch to open source.
Posted by misterpinball | December 22, 2007 1:36 PM
Just a requirement of the modern business world. Nothing more, nothing less
- Shelon Padmore
Posted by Shelon Padmore | December 24, 2007 8:07 AM
Joe, thanks for your post, and here is my own take on things. Best, David
Posted by David Strom | January 2, 2008 5:14 PM