Open source Windows Server, Microsoft's next poisonous pill?

LXer feature When Microsoft launched its first shared source initiative, Eric S Raymond called it a 'poisonous pill'. His opinion was, anyone who ever saw the 'shared' code, could be sued by Microsoft if the viewer ever wrote code that even looked like the shared Microsoft code. The latest Microsoft initiative to 'open source' parts of the Windows Server to settle with the EC may be one of the latest of Redmond's poisonous pills.

Like with the 'shared source' initiative, it is simpler for Microsoft to sue you for copyright infringement if you actually reviewed their source-code. If they only give the protocols and not the code, how could you have stolen their code? But, if they give you the source code containing the protocols, which you include in your software, it may look like you used their code, because both free and MS' software have to do the same tasks. So, anyone who have seen the Windows code, could never write something himself that looks like the Microsoft code, even if they are only a tiny bit the same.

I also briefly reviewed the "3-day evaluation license". This is the license under which parts of Windows will become open source in their new initiative as settlement with the EC. I must admit I didn't feel like reading the whole license, since it was extremely complex. However, I found some interesting claims.

The first interesting was this one:

"It is a condition of agreement that Evaluator...review the Technical Documentation solely for Evaluation Purposes, and not for use in the design, development or testing of software."

What does this mean? You may read it, but not use it? Read and forget it? Well, that sounds fussy to me.

Anyway, Microsoft claims we will have free access to the code. But it is not free as in beer as far as I understand the term. A free 3-day trial will exist. But further on, it reads: the evaluation period is only meant to review, if we want to enter into a WSPP agreement. As far as I understood, this will cost you money. And of course, you are not free to copy or redistribute

Then they have a pool of 'restricted' protocols. Only if your company is listed on the large European stock markets, are you able to get your hands on the protocols. Microsoft says this is because of 'security reasons'. Does anyone really believe this?

In another section, I also read that the license will not apply to Windows Server - codename Longhorn. Excuse me? Then, what's the point, since the protocols will likely change given Microsoft's history ?

So, apparently, it is not as open as Microsoft wants us to think. They know the word 'open' scores these days, so they misuse it, and thereby try to change the meaning of 'open', bringing disgrace to its real meaning.

But, don't misjudge the European Commission, they are not that stupid, and not all Eurocommissioners brought Microsoft in as the main-sponsor when their country was the 'chair-country' (like chairman) of the EU (like commissioner McCreevy of Ireland did). As a spokesperson of Neelie Kroes, the commissioner entrusted with this Microsoft case said :

"They could give us half a million pages, but if it's not the right information to allow competitors to make a Microsoft-compatible workgroup server, it doesn't solve the problem of compliance"