Microsoft and Open Source: Myths and Realities

Many people often ask a simple question: is Microsoft a shareware? The quick answer is no, but the story behind this question is much more complex and revealing. Microsoft, a name synonymous with proprietary software, often faces criticism for its approach to open source. In this article, we will explore the myth and reality of Microsoft's relationship with open source and why it has strictly guarded its copyright.

Myth #1: Microsoft Is Open Source

The myth invariably starts with the widespread belief that Microsoft has embraced the open source philosophy. This is far from the truth. Microsoft's contributions to open source projects are often minimal and selective. While it has participated in some open source initiatives, these are usually to support its overall business interests. A strong example of this is the acquisition of GitHub, a crucial platform for developers.

Myth #2: Symbian: An Example of Microsoft's Open Source Engagement

A common point often cited is the case of Nokia's Symbian OS. When Microsoft acquired Nokia in 2014, many speculated that the Symbian Foundation could continue the OS development as an open source effort. However, this was not the case. The Symbian Foundation continued to work on the platform, but it quickly became apparent that Microsoft's influence was significant.

Even though Microsoft had acquired the Symbian OS, it strictly enforced its copyright and intellectual property rights, which hindered the foundation's efforts to create an open version of the Symbian OS. The foundation needed the Microsoft C library to compile the source code, but Microsoft refused to license it, fundamentally stifling the project.

Reality: Microsoft and Copyright Protection

Microsoft's strict stance on copyright protection is well-documented. This corporate strategy is rooted in the company's business model, which relies heavily on proprietary software. As a result, Microsoft has a vast team of aggressive lawyers dedicated to enforcing its copyright and protecting its intellectual property.

The Symbian OS case is a prime example of this strategy in action. When the foundation attempted to create an open-source version of the Symbian OS, Microsoft's refusal to license its C library was a major obstacle. This decision effectively prevented the development of a truly open and independent version of Symbian, maintaining Microsoft's control over the source code.

Implications and Future Outlook

The strict copyright policies and aggressive legal actions by Microsoft have significant implications for the open source community. Developing and maintaining open-source projects often rely on the ability to freely access and use different libraries and components. Microsoft's actions in the case of Symbian highlight the challenges faced by open-source developers who seek to collaborate with proprietary software companies.

Looking to the future, while Microsoft has shown some willingness to engage with open source communities, it is still primarily focused on protecting its intellectual property. The company has made some minor contributions to open source projects, but these are often superficial and aimed at maintaining a positive public image rather than fostering genuine collaboration.

To conclude, the myth that Microsoft is a shareware is simply not true. Microsoft's aggressive approach to copyright and intellectual property protection, as demonstrated by the Symbian case, clearly shows that the company remains committed to its proprietary software model. While there may be some areas of engagement with open source, the overarching reality is that Microsoft continues to jealously guard its copyright and proprietary rights.

Keywords: Microsoft, Open Source, Copyright