Today, Microsoft announced the release of more interoperability information, including legacy, Office binary file formats.
The updated protocol information is available here, on the MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network).
Microsoft also released final protocol information for 2007 versions of Exchange Server, Office 2007 and SharePoint Server. The information moves "from preliminary to 1.0 stage," Craig Shank, Microsoft's general manager of Interoperability, told me on Friday. "We're at a stage where we have a high degree of confidence in it."
Say what? How the hell do you have a 1.0 release of protocol information? So, what, the earlier release was beta? I didn't think of these questions until writing this post, otherwise I would have directly asked Craig last week. Because I wonder: How can somebody develop around protocols that are released but really are incomplete, let alone license them?
Microsoft released preliminary protocol information in April. The 1.0 designation reflects changes incorporated based on community feedback. I wonder how much feedback Microsoft got on licensing terms, which are unchanged.
The protocol information is free to use for non-commercial purposes. But people developing commercial products pay—and if not, their customers do. It's sensible that Microsoft charges for its patented technologies. But European Union sanctions demand free use of server protocol information for open source and free software, a concession Microsoft hasn't made. It's one I expect the company will never make.
"There isn't a cost to learning more," Craig said. "The documentation is posted to MSDN. Anyone can read anytime. Better yet there's a set of forums."
I probed Craig a bit about to see how far Microsoft would pursue non-paying commercial users. Microsoft gives away development tools to college students. What if someone develops an application that goes from free to commercial? I used example of a student charging others for a social networking app using Microsoft protocols. Craig emphasized the difference between a commercial enterprise and a student making "nickels for beer money. I'm not sure that's the most useful way to do the analysis."
Fair enough. Microsoft doesn't want to nickel and dime students out of their nickels and dimes.
Besides protocols for newer products, Microsoft also released information for Office binary file formats, such as .doc and .xls. Enterprises have mountains of valuable data locked away in these older formats. Their interoperability deserves consideration, too, and not just among Microsoft and third-party technologies. The protocols should allow enterprises to better extract meaningful data from older Microsoft file formats.
Microsoft also disclosed patent information. "It is patents that cover those protocols that we're publishing," Craig said. Because of licensing considerations, I asked if information included patents from other companies. "It is Microsoft patents," he affirmed.
Questions remain about Microsoft's interoperability sincerity, whether the company feels forced—by market conditions or European regulators—or has simply changed its ways.
"I would evaluate based on the documentation itself," Craig said. "I would suggest that a serious implentator would roll up his shelves and dive in."
Thoughtfully listening to his responses, I got to thinking about other companies' protocol information publishing. For all the criticism of Microsoft, I can't think of another high-tech company disclosing near as much information. So I asked Craig about other companies publishing protocol information.
"I would love to see others follow our leadership on this," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment