I was recently introduced to the notion of source code escrow. The short definition is this:
A company that you partner with provides you with the source code for their products in escrow, meaning you have access to it provided one of a couple of things happens, for example, the company goes out of business, or they fail to provide an adequate level of support, or stop supporting a produc that you're still using.
And this got me wondering, why doesn't Microsoft provide their code in Escrow?
Microsoft has been fairly aggressive in releasing new versions of their products, and discontinuing support for older versions. This is their choice, and their right as a company, and it certainly is their choice to not provide any code in escrow, but I think it would win them more customers if they provided the source in escrow, so it could be opened up after support has been discontinued.
Honestly, if they're not still selling it, and they're not supporting it, and they have newer software available, then why protect it? Why hide it? Copyrights and patents run out at some point, and things enter into the public domain. Why not unsupported software?
People would be cheered to know that they could continue to use the OS they wanted and get someone else to support it. Students and hackers could open it up under the hood and look at it, and see how things were done. We could all learn from it. Newer software could be ported to old operating systems.
| Honestly, if they're not still selling it, and they're not supporting it, and they have newer software available, then why protect it? Why hide it? Copyrights and patents run out at some point, and things enter into the public domain. Why not unsupported software? |
I should be fair. I'm not just looking for Microsoft to do something like this, but other big companies as well. Where are the IBMs and the Oracles and the Suns that claim to support open source without providing their source to their customers? Where are the smaller tool companies that do routinely go out of business? They all claim to be "customer-centric", but don't see fit to provide this level of support to their customers.
It's not as if the minute they do this, the source appears on the internet, or some company begins making their own version of Windows 95. The source code existing in escrow comes with some very specific legal conditions that must be met before the code can be handed over.
I'll admit that my desire for this is fueled by a desire to look into the Windows source code, and I figure that most people that clamor for open-source windows are driven by that desire as well.
But I think there are business benefits to Microsoft, and others by providing this service, and I wish they would implement it.
Yes, and it would also be nice if everything in the world was free and if I had the magical power to have month long orgasms. Both of which have a better chance of happening than what you are suggesting.
If you have such a hard-on to see the source code of that bloated piece of crap, here's an idea. GET A JOB AT MICROSOFT.
Opening Microsofts source code would not destroy Linux. So many OS's besides Linux have opened their code up and it has not affected Linux on bit. The strength of Linux is a combination of good design, code review, enthusiasm for have your say in a community project, and the openness of the environment.
On the other hand, if Microsoft went open source ( and free ) , you would see a huge decline in installations ( not necessarily sales ) of Windows products at the residential level as it would no longer be 'cool' to have it. Anyone could get it for free, not just the copyright violators. No release schedule ( OEM, Business sales channel, home sales channel, educational sales channel ). Eventually this may hurt sales as the installed base shrinks, and Open Standards for things like Documents( ala MS Word , Spreadsheets, Presentations ) would be created so that any program of a particular type would be able to read/write documents by programs that performed a particular function.
Where does this leave us? Choice. People now choose what software to acquire and use by qualities such as speed,efficiency, reliability, instead of choosing it because that is what everyone else is using.