The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and the Samba Team have presented terms explaining how Microsoft could be brought into compliance with the decision of the European Court of First Instance of December 2004.

"In order to write interoperable software, developers use so-called Interface Definition Language Files (IDL). These are currently held secret by Microsoft, so no one else can write interoperable software. In order to comply with its obligations, Microsoft should have to make these available, along with a description of the encryption methods they have employed, under a license enabling them to be implemented in Free Software. This is the only way to make sure the Samba Team is given a real chance to compete and interoperate with Microsoft," Georg Greve, president of FSFE explains. He continues: "Given past experiences, we also recommend to the Commission that it set a strict delivery date for these specifications."

Last December, the European Court decided that Microsoft should not be granted more time to expand its monopoly by withholding interoperability information from competitors, requesting that the antitrust decision of the European Commission be put into immediate effect.

"Microsoft can no longer hide behind bland statements such as 'we will comply', FSFE attorney Carlo Piana pointed out. "Now it is time to see how committed they are to compliance. Our proposal is very balanced and does not request more than the Samba Team could achieve by 'network analysis', but it forces the disclosure of the protocols in a timely manner. We have asked the Commission to submit our proposal to a reliable independent expert".

In the recent proposal from the FSFE [1], Samba developer Jeremy Allison pointed out that : "IDL definitions are purely a way to describe an interface - they describe a protocol." In order to develop interoperable products is it necessary to have access to these specifications. "It is similar to needing to know the grammar and spelling rules in order to write in a language", Allison concludes.

Regarding encryption, Allison says: "Encryption of network traffic is a well established practice and is not a Microsoft innovation. But to successfully interoperate it is necessary to know what kind of encryption is used, under what circumstances, and with what kind of keys."

Regarding any compensation Microsoft feels it is entitled to, Carlo Piana said: "The information we request is not secret because it is valuable, it is valuable because it is secret. Additionally, we are convinced that Microsoft has been over-compensated many times by its monopoly position. Their extraordinary large operating profit demonstrates that. Such profits have been made possible because of the effects of and technological lock-ins and tying together of clients and servers."

The only reasonable compensation that would not entirely defeat the purpose of the European Commission decision would be a one-off fee for obtaining a copy of the protocol documentation. A reasonable benchmark for this fee might be the cost developers pay to get access to the Microsoft Developers Network (MSDN), which contains much similar information.

As with the MSDN terms and conditions, it would not be unreasonable to also charge developers for updated and revised versions of the protocol documents. However, these would have to be supplied in a complete and timely fashion, the FSFE and the Samba Team emphasized.

"The Free Software world has once again shown how it is capable of providing high-quality work even under adverse circumstances," Georg Greve summarizes. "With the input of FSFE and the Samba Team to the European Commission, they now hold in their hands what is needed to make their decision have consequences. Taking into account how Microsoft struggled to 'comply' with the decision, however, we recommend that they constantly monitor Microsoft's behaviour."

Background: The FSFE has been involved as third party in the original investigation and also the European Court case. It was originally admitted to the court to defend the interests of the Samba Team and is now permitted to bring up any aspect relevant to Free Software. The Samba Team and FSFE worked as one team during the entire proceedings and Samba representative Jeremy Allison spoke on behalf of FSFE at the European Court.

[1] http://www.avvocatinteam.com/repository/request.tar.gz

About the Free Software Foundation Europe:

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a charitable non-governmental organisation dedicated to all aspects of Free Software in Europe. Access to software determines who may participate in a digital society. Therefore the Freedoms to use, copy, modify and redistribute software - as described in the Free Software definition- allow equal participation in the information age. Creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. The FSFE was founded in 2001 as the European sister organisation of the Free Software Foundation in the United States.

Further information: http://www.fsfeurope.org