Microsoft Goes Open Access; When Will It Go Open Source?

from the just-a-matter-of-time dept

Even though Microsoft is no longer the dominant player or pacesetter in the computer industry -- those roles are shared by Google and Apple these days -- it still does interesting work through its Microsoft Research arm. Here's some welcome news from the latter: it's moving to open access for its researchers' publications.

In a recent interview with Scientific American, Peter Lee, head of Microsoft Research, discussed three main motivations for basic research at Microsoft. The first relates to an aspiration to advance human knowledge, the second derives from a culture that relies deeply on the ambitions of individual researchers, and the last concerns "promoting open publication of all research results and encouraging deep collaborations with academic researchers." It is in keeping with this third motivation that Microsoft Research recently committed to an Open Access policy for our researchers' publications.
The new open access policy provides some background for the move:
Microsoft Research is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible because we recognize the benefits that accrue to scholarly enterprises from such wide dissemination, including more thorough review, consideration and critique, and general increase in scientific, scholarly and critical knowledge.
Of course, that's hardly an original insight. It's been known for many years that opening up in order to allow others to review, critique and build upon your work is far more efficient for everyone than locking it up and preventing all those things. It's the basis of all science, for example. And closer to home for Microsoft, the benefits of opening up software have been evident for decades -- ever since Richard Stallman launched his GNU's Not Unix project, based on sharing and collaboration.

Given the fact that Microsoft Research evidently gets this, the interesting question is whether the main Microsoft management ever will. After all, the longer it holds out against releasing its main products as open source, the longer it deprives itself of all the advantages that Microsoft Research is now embracing.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    alternatives(), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 2:49am

    The source is open

    but not to you.

    Select governments get access and if you are a very large customer you can get access as I understand.

    On occasion claims are made that 'the bad-guy hackers' have code for certain specific releases but that sounds like the 2011 vintage claims that the NSA has access to all kinds of citizen data.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 4:27am

    Look at it from a management perspective...
    Open access does not change their ability to control development or patent and control use of developments.
    Open source means giving up a lot of their ability to direct development, and does not work well with the use of patents. It also means giving up control over the use of what has been developed.
    Therefore from a management perspective, open access publishing gives the appearance of co-operation without actually giving up any control. Open source requires giving up a large amount of control, and possibly losing out to a community that does a better job.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 4:27am

    Hate to be the devils advocate but...

    As much as I love open source I do think closed source has a place and will always have a place. It makes it easier for people to want to invest. And what about games? Seems awfully hard to sell a big budget game when you just give away all the code that makes it.

    Really glad Microsoft is opening up it's research though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    blaktron (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 4:51am

    I think that using GNU as an example of pure open source working its actually disproving your point, especially compared to Microsoft.

    That example actually, when looked at neutrally , suggests that Linux and GNU should close their source and start selling because its obvious which s more in use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    quawonk, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 5:06am

    If they went open source, all their spy bugs and backdoors would be exposed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 5:33am

    Re:

    suggests that Linux and GNU should close their source and start selling because its obvious which s more in use.
    Erm... not sure what you're trying to get at. Are you suggesting that MS software is used more because it's closed source? That's hardly "looking at it neutrally". Far as I can see MS became the most used OS because 1/ It was among the first to develop a relatively computer-illiterate-friendly interface and 2/ It got (illegally) copied massively 3/ Now it's largely inertia from 1 and 2 driven by businesses who think they can't afford to retrain their staff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 5:50am

    Re:

    The only market where Microsoft is dominant is on desktop and laptop devices, elsewhere Linux is dominant, or has a significant share of the market; like Android Phones. Linux is running on more device, from embedded device through to the supercomputers than windows. Not only does it run the Internet, it might be running your TV, Microwave or router.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Pat, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:05am

    There, I fixed it for you.

    Microsoft? Sharing???
    When are people going to learn???

    "the longer it deprives itself of all the advantages that Microsoft Research is now embracing."

    "the longer it deprives itself of all the advantages that Microsoft Research is now embracing, so that they can later extend it, and then extinguish it. Business as usual for Microsoft."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:11am

    Re: The source is open

    Yes, select governments, like China, can get access to Windows source code.

    Remember the DOJ vs Microsoft antitrust case? Microsoft (Jim Alchin) testified that Windows 98 is inherently insecure. (gee, why didn't you tell people that before they bought it?) And revealing the source code would compromise national security.

    Yet Microsoft was making a big deal that some select companies and governments could get access to the source code "under glass". That is, you can see it, but you cannot touch it. And China was one of them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:13am

    Re: There, I fixed it for you.

    Don't be so harsh on Microsoft.

    Sharing is a two way street.

    You share your money with Microsoft, and Microsoft will share with you the honor of bowing to their whims and change technology and rewrite everything whenever Microsoft says. Remember VB6? Remember XAML? Silverlight? Remember the classic desktop interface prior to Windows 8?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:15am

    Re:

    > If they went open source, all their spy bugs and backdoors would be exposed.

    What? Are you suggesting that someone would ever find NSAKEY in Microsoft code? Such a thing would be unthinkable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Guardian, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:25am

    too late , USA = spyware

    too late , USA = spyware

    too late , USA = spyware

    too late , USA = spyware

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:40am

    Re: Hate to be the devils advocate but...

    the moment that it became documented fact that the NSA has been including backdoors in about every software they can get their hands on, closed source lost every right to exist and every right to be trusted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Mike, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 6:50am

    Micro$oft will never, ever go open source.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 7:16am

    Re:

    If MS were go open source I would suggest they look at Red Hat and SUSE for working business models. What these two do is have an enterprise edition and a supported community (free) edition. The enterprise edition has paid long term support and is conservative trading more stability for new features. The community editions tend to have newer features at some small risk of stability. Here both get the insight of outsiders and a vibrant community of users from the free version to help develop the enterprise edition.

    The switch will require a cultural shift within MS for it work. This is the real problem; what is management willing to surrender.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 7:32am

    Seriously? Minion thinks Microsoft is doing anything but PR here?

    That there's ANY chance it'd go open source? Whew.

    Just shows the triumph of net-weenie futurist idealism over decades of everyday actualities.

    And that's why I like Techdirt! It's the HOOTIEST site on the net!

    Microsoft sticks to its bad ideas only because can't come up with worse.

    03:31:20[d-962-2]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:05am

    Re: The source is open

    I have, at various times, had access to Windows source code for a couple different versions of Windows. I always joked that the reason Microsoft wants to keep the source a secret so bad is because the code is an embarrassment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:07am

    Re:

    Open source means giving up a lot of their ability to direct development, and does not work well with the use of patents.


    Actually, none of that is true. It's entirely possible to have an open source project that you retain tight developmental control over. It's done frequently.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:11am

    Re: Hate to be the devils advocate but...

    It makes it easier for people to want to invest.


    Perhaps... but I suspect that most investors simply want to be reasonably sure that their investment will yield dividends and they don't particularly care about the development details as long as that is true.

    Seems awfully hard to sell a big budget game when you just give away all the code that makes it.


    I don't follow this argument. Why would open source make selling big budget games more difficult? The bulk of what makes big budget games big budget is not development of the code, it's the development of the artwork, video, acting, music, etc. None of that has to be included in the open source.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    mattshow (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:30am

    Re:

    Open source means giving up a lot of their ability to direct development, and does not work well with the use of patents.


    I don't understand your argument with respect to patents. To get a patent you're supposed to fully reveal all the information necessary to implement the invention in the patent application. An open source implementation of a patented invention shouldn't be revealing anything new - all that information should have been in the application anyway.

    I suppose if you open sourced your code and it contained inventions that you later decided to patent, that could be problematic. But that doesn't mean code can't be open sourced, it just means you need to get your patent applications in first.

    Open sourcing code (and adopting open access policies for publications) can have some beneficial effects when it comes to patents. It can be a useful way to protect your inventions that you don't feel like patenting but you don't want anyone else patenting either. It opens up the argument that any potential inventions contained in the code or in the journal are now known to the public. This makes it easier to cry "prior art!" if some other party tries to get a patent on the same thing (or if they do slip the patent by the USPTO, it makes it easier for you to defend against an infringement lawsuit).

    Bell Labs hasn't been publishing their Technical Journal all these years just to show off how smart they are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    mattshow (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:34am

    Re: Re:

    Of course, I realize re-reading my comment that open sourcing code doesn't just mean opening the code up to others but also granting them a license to use it. So of course, if you had hoped to license out the inventions contained in your code, that's problematic.

    Embarrassing to have missed that, but I'm happy that the first place my brain went wasn't "But how will this affect my ability to sue people?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:51am

    Re: The source is open

    I have the complete source code for windows 2000 sitting here on my computer, even though I am not a large client (or university) or a 'bad-guy hackers', and guess what, NO BACK DOORS !!!.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re:

    so patents are GOOD FOR software development ! protecting the inventor and not stifling technological advancement!

    (I knew it!!!)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re:

    "The only market where Microsoft is dominant is on desktop and laptop devices, elsewhere Linux is dominant, or has a significant share of the market;"

    but Google and Apple did not develop or 'invent' Linux !

    by saying "DOMINANT, OR has significant share" means "DOMINANT OR NOT". Yes, I guess that is true, Linux is either dominant OR NOT dominant in areas.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:00am

    Re:

    and yet they are not exposed by the massive analysis of the code by university students or professors! why would that be.

    The source code for MS Windows code has been leaked and is available for download and your own study and analysis (although probably not legally).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re:

    Bell Labs hasn't been publishing their Technical Journal all these years just to show off how smart they are.

    Publication does not grant a license for use, and an idea can bepatented before publication. Therefore, if a patent is held, the company can still deal with a derived idea by prohibiting a competitors use of, charge them for a license, or license the idea for use in their own products without allowing competition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:03am

    "Even though Microsoft is no longer the dominant player or pacesetter in the computer industry "

    then why do all these 'open-source' types fall all over themselves for the last 25 years trying to emulate Microsoft's functionality, features and looks?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    Nobody has followed Microsoft's lead in many years. There may be an exception to this -- although I can't think of one offhand -- but in every relatively recent case that there is a similarity between a feature in a Microsoft product and one in an open sourced project, the open sourced one had it first and Microsoft copied from them.

    This even extends to Windows 8 -- the terrible notion that one UI should fit all platforms originated in the likes of KDE and Ubuntu.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:26am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Google are a significant contribution to open source, by including for example employing kernel developers, and contributing to the Linux foundation who sponsor Linus. Apple based takes some BSD licensed code, but they are no really community players.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 10:51am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Apple's OSes aren't connected to Linux. They're connected to BSD.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 11:38am

    Re: The source is open

    If you think that the bad guys DON'T have access to it, then you are clueless, uninformed, naive, and very, very stupid.

    Of course they do. Microsoft's source code is spread around so many government agencies and large corporations that it i absolutely impossible for it NOT to be in the hands of the bad guys. Whether they hacked in to get it, or bought it from insiders with access, or picked it up from an accidental leak are all interesting possibilities...but the fact is yes, they have it, they've had for years, and they're almost certainly getting near-real-time updates of it.

    Keep in mind this is a company which has spent its entire existence demonstrating that it is profoundly clueless about security. (And provided another example just recently: http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2014/01/12/microsoft-no-idea-what-to-do-after-breached-by-syrian-electr onic-army/) Expecting them to keep source code secret is like expecting your pet hamster to solve a differential equation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    ysth (profile), Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 5:45pm

    I think you are overdoing the criticism of main Microsoft; after all, didn't they make Office's file layouts an open, international standard?

    More seriously, open source their products? What have you been smoking?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jan 23rd, 2014 @ 8:54pm

    The day Microsoft goes open source is the day that Hell freezes over. Seriously, they won't even allow free distribution of older Windows versions for old systems. If you don't have a computer that can run Windows 7/8, Microsoft thinks you don't deserve to run Windows period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Jan 24th, 2014 @ 3:34am

    Microsoft Research is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible because we recognize the benefits that accrue to scholarly enterprises from such wide dissemination, including more thorough review, consideration and critique, and general increase in scientific, scholarly and critical knowledge.
    Translation: Somebody woke up and smelt the coffee.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jan 24th, 2014 @ 8:26am

    Re:

    didn't they make Office's file layouts an open, international standard?


    That's a misrepresentation. They fought hard against that happening for a lot of years, including making frequent, arbitrary changes to the format regularly to foil the ability for non-Microsoft tools to use the format. I don't know if it's quite right to give them credit for losing that battle.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    ysth (profile), Jan 24th, 2014 @ 10:15am

    Re: Re:

    whoosh

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    SpoiledBrat, Mar 4th, 2014 @ 8:26am

    Mostly Harmless

    The lack of thoughtful comments here is disappointing -- I hope none of you write code in similar manner. Please do yourselves a favor and look deeper than the surface of this issue, especially if you are expecting to become, and remain, relevant in a technology related career.

    Thoughtful conversation and discourse, outside of Washington D.C., often leads to a stable source that only needs to be compiled to do real work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This