View source for Halloween documents

{{Short description|Confidential Microsoft strategies against free and open-source software}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2015}}
[[File:Eric_Steven_Raymond.CUT.png | thumb | right | alt=Eric Raymond | Eric Raymond]]
The '''Halloween documents''' comprise a series of confidential [[Microsoft]] [[memoranda]] on potential strategies relating to [[free software]], [[open-source software]], and to [[Linux]] in particular, and a series of media responses to these memoranda. Both the leaked documents and the responses were published by open-source software advocate [[Eric S. Raymond]] in 1998.<ref name="document1" /><ref name="nytimes"/>

The documents are associated with [[Halloween]] because many of them were originally leaked close to October 31 in different years.

==Overview==
The first Halloween document, requested by senior vice-president [[Jim Allchin]] for the attention of senior vice-president [[Paul Maritz]] and written by Microsoft program manager Vinod Valloppillil, was leaked to [[Eric S. Raymond|Eric Raymond]] in October 1998, who immediately published an annotated version on his web site. The document contained references to a second memorandum specifically dealing with [[Linux]], and that document, authored by Vinod Valloppillil and Josh Cohen at Microsoft, was also obtained, annotated and published by Raymond. Microsoft later  acknowledged the documents' authenticity.<ref name="linuxresp"/> Marked "Microsoft confidential", the documents identified open-source software, and in particular the Linux operating system, as a major threat to Microsoft's domination of the software industry,<ref name="document1"/> and suggested tactics Microsoft could use to disrupt the progress of open-source software.

These documents acknowledged that [[free software]] products such as Linux were technologically competitive with some of Microsoft's products,<ref name="document1"/> and set out a strategy to combat them. These views contradicted Microsoft's public pronouncements on the subject.

Since the publication of the two original documents, other Microsoft memoranda on related topics have also been leaked and published.

==List of documents==
The documents are from a variety of sources. Only some are leaked internal memos (documents I, II, VII, VIII, and X). One is a public statement (document III). The others are responses by Eric Raymond to various columns, news articles, and other works.

{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! No. !! Name !! Author !! Date !! Brief description
|- valign="top"
| I || "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology" || Microsoft / Vinod Valloppillil || {{Date table sorting|August 1998}} || A leaked internal report<ref name="document1"/>
|- valign="top"
| II || "Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM?" || Microsoft / Vinod Valloppillil || {{Date table sorting|August 1998}} || A leaked internal report<ref name="document2"/>
|- valign="top"
| III || Untitled statement || Microsoft / Aurelia van den Berg || {{Date table sorting|November 1998}} || Press statement from Microsoft Netherlands<ref name="document3"/>
|- valign="top"
| IV || "When Software Things Were Rotten" || Eric S. Raymond || {{Date table sorting|December 1998}} || A satire piece based on Microsoft's [[Ed Muth]] comparing open source developers to [[Robin Hood]]<ref name="document4"/>
|- valign="top"
| V || "The FUD Begins" || Eric S. Raymond || {{Date table sorting|March 1999}} || A response by Raymond to Ed Muth's allegations that Linux has a "weak [[value proposition]]"<ref name="document5"/>
|- valign="top"
| VI || "The Fatal Anniversary" || Eric S. Raymond || {{Date table sorting|October 1999}} || A response by Raymond to studies authored by the [[Gartner]] group for Microsoft<ref name="document6"/>
|- valign="top"
| VII || "Research E-Bulletin: Attitudes Towards Shared Source and Open Source Research Study" || Microsoft || {{Date table sorting|September 2002}} || A summary of the results of a Microsoft survey describing reactions to Microsoft's [[Shared Source Initiative]]<ref name="document7"/>
|- valign="top"
| VIII || "OSS and Government" || Microsoft / Orlando Ayala || {{Date table sorting|November 2002}} || Describes Microsoft's procedures for responding to notable conversions away from Microsoft software<ref name="document8"/>
|- valign="top"
| IX || "It Ain't Necessarily SCO" || Eric S. Raymond and Rob Landley || {{Date table sorting|August 2003}} || A response to the allegations made by the [[SCO Group]] in its initial filings in ''[[SCO v. IBM]]''<ref name="document9"/>
|- valign="top"
| X || "Follow The Money" || Mike Anderer || {{Date table sorting|March 2004}} || An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to SCO's Chris Sontag revealing Microsoft's channeling of $86{{nbsp}}million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|86|2004|r=-1}}{{nbsp}}million in {{Inflation/year|US}}) to SCO<ref name="document10"/>
|- valign="top"
| XI || "Get The FUD" || Eric S. Raymond || {{Date table sorting|June 2004}} || A response to Microsoft's "[[Get the Facts]]" campaign<ref name="document11"/>
|}

===Documents I and II===
These are leaked reports for Microsoft's own use, both written by Vinod Valloppillil, a program manager at Microsoft.

Document I provides a detailed introduction to the concepts behind open source software and its possible impact on Microsoft products and services. It outlines the strengths and weaknesses of open source software. Document II describes the basic architecture of the Linux system, and its relation to Unix and Windows NT.<ref name="document1"/><ref name="document2"/>

Document I revealed that "FUD" (spreading [[fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]) was a traditional Microsoft marketing strategy, acknowledged and understood internally.<ref name="nytimes" /> Examples of Microsoft's FUD tactics are [[Vaporware|announcing nonexistent products]] or spreading rumors that competing products will crash Windows.<ref name="salon"/> Raymond suggests that the documents show that while Microsoft may have been dismissive of open source software in public, it privately considers it a serious competitor.

In discussing ways of competing with open source, Document I suggests that one reason that open source projects had been able to enter the [[webserver|server]] market is the market's use of standardized protocols. The document then suggests that this can be stopped by "extending these protocols and developing new protocols" and "de-commoditiz[ing] protocols & applications". This policy has been internally nicknamed "[[embrace, extend, extinguish]]". Document I also suggests that open source software "is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it", and "Recent case studies (the Internet) provide very dramatic evidence ... that commercial quality can be achieved / exceeded by OSS projects."

Documents I and II were filed as evidence on January 16, 2007, in the case of ''[[Comes v. Microsoft]]''.<ref name="gotthefact"/>

===Document III===
The statement from Aurelia van den Berg, the Press and Public Relations manager of Microsoft Netherlands, puts forward Microsoft's view on the first two documents. It says that the documents are not an "official position", but that "it is routine and appropriate" to research competitors. This statement is only a brief response, but many points were later incorporated into an official response from Microsoft.<ref name="linuxresp" />

===Document VII===
This document is a summary of the results of a survey of developers and IT managers, carried out by Microsoft, describing reactions to Microsoft's [[shared source|shared-source]] program. Eric Raymond provides commentary suggesting ways that the open-source community can promote itself based on the results of the survey. The results show favorable responses about both open-source and shared-source principles. It also describes low [[total cost of ownership]] (TCO) as a major reason for Linux adoption, in contradiction to many documents released by the company suggesting that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux solutions.<ref name="microsoft1"/><ref name="microsoft2"/><ref name="eweek"/>

===Document VIII===
"OSS and Government", aka "'''Halloween VIII: Doing the Damage-Control Dance'''", is a memo from Group Vice President of Worldwide Sales, Orlando Ayala, to general managers of Microsoft regional subsidiaries. It describes the availability of support from Microsoft corporate for regional sales personnel facing competition from Linux in government markets.

===Document X===
An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to [[SCO Group]]'s Chris Sontag, also known as "'''Halloween X: Follow The Money'''". The document describes, among other points, Microsoft's channeling of $86&nbsp;million (equivalent to ${{Inflation|US|86|2004}}&nbsp;million in {{Inflation-year|US}}) to SCO.

== See also ==
* [[AARD code]]
* [[Microsoft and open source]]
* [[Santa Cruz Operation]]
* [[Embrace, extend, and extinguish]]

==References==
<references>
<ref name="nytimes">
{{cite news
|last=Harmon
|first=Amy
|date=1998-11-03
|title=Internal Memo Shows Microsoft Executives' Concern Over Free Software
|work=[[The New York Times]]
|url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/biztech/articles/03memo.html |access-date=2011-11-05
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document1">{{cite web
|title=Halloween Document, Part 1
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=https://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051201011646/http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html
|archive-date=December 1, 2005
}}
<br/>At [https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween1.html gnu.org].</ref>

<ref name="document2">
{{cite web
|title=Halloween Document, Part 2
|url=https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween2.html
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200128171030/https://www.gnu.org/software/fsfe/projects/ms-vs-eu/halloween2.html
|archive-date=2020-01-28
|access-date=2024-10-16
}}
<br/>At [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween2.html catb.org].
</ref>

<ref name="document3">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 3
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween3.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document4">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 4
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween4.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document5">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 5
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween5.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document6">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 6
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween6.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document7">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 7
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween7.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document8">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 8
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween8.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document9">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 9
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween9.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document10">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 10
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="document11">
{{cite web 
|title=Halloween Document, Part 11
|access-date=2024-10-16
|url=http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween11.html
}}
</ref>

<ref name="microsoft1">
{{cite web
|title=Get the Facts: Total Cost of Ownership
|url=http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/0/6/a0628eee-0114-4444-9793-e52a92dc4cf4/getthefacts_execsummary_tco.doc
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070411041813/http://download.microsoft.com/download/a/0/6/a0628eee-0114-4444-9793-e52a92dc4cf4/GetTheFacts_ExecSummary_TCO.DOC
|archive-date=2007-04-11
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
|format=DOC
}}
</ref>

<ref name="microsoft2">
{{cite web
|title=Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing
|url=http://download.microsoft.com/documents/uk/technet/opex/downloads/Windows_2000_v_Linux_Enterprise_Computing.pdf
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130623193912/http://download.microsoft.com/documents/uk/technet/opex/downloads/Windows_2000_v_Linux_Enterprise_Computing.pdf
|archive-date=2013-06-23
|publisher=[[International Data Corporation|IDC]]
}}
</ref>

<ref name="eweek">
{{cite web
|last=Galli
|first=Peter
|date=2002-12-02
|title=Study Finds Windows Cheaper Than Linux
|url=https://www.eweek.com/servers/study-finds-windows-cheaper-than-linux
|url-status=live
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20201111121556/https://www.eweek.com/servers/study-finds-windows-cheaper-than-linux
|archive-date=November 11, 2020
|access-date=2020-11-12
|website=[[eWeek]]
}}
</ref>

<ref name="linuxresp">
{{cite web
|date=1998-11-05 |title=Microsoft Responds to the Open Source Memo Regarding the Open Source Model and Linux
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/mwarv/linuxresp.asp
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19991013112307/http://microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/mwarv/linuxresp.asp
|archive-date=1999-10-13
|access-date=2012-06-02
|website=Windows NT Server 4.0 website
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
}}
</ref>

<ref name="salon">
{{cite news
|author-link=Scott Rosenberg (journalist)
|date=1998-11-04
|title=Let's Get This Straight: Microsoft's Halloween scare
|work=Salon
|publisher=[[Salon Media Group]]
|url=http://www.salon.com/1998/11/04/straight_39/
|url-status=live
|access-date=2012-06-02
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112092006/http://www.salon.com/1998/11/04/straight_39/
|archive-date=2013-11-12
|author-first=Scott
|author-last=Rosenberg
}}
</ref>

<ref name="gotthefact">
{{cite web
|date=2007-01-16
|title=Plaintiff's Exhibit 6501
|url=http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011607/6000/PX06501.pdf
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071107034843/http://iowa.gotthefacts.org/011607/6000/PX06501.pdf
|archive-date=2007-11-07
|access-date=2012-06-02
|website=Exhibits Offered by Plaintiffs on 1.11.07 and Admitted by the Court on 1.16.07
|publisher=iowa.gotthefacts.org
}}
</ref>
</references>

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin}}
*{{Cite news |last=Rodger |first=Will |date=1998-11-09 |title=Intel exec: MS wanted to 'extend, embrace and extinguish' competition |work=[[ZDNet]] |publisher=[[CBS Interactive]] |location=Washington |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-exec-ms-wanted-to-extend-embrace-and-extinguish-competition/ |url-status=live |access-date=2012-06-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150209074917/http://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-exec-ms-wanted-to-extend-embrace-and-extinguish-competition/ |archive-date=2015-02-09}}
*{{Cite web |last=Jones |first=Pamela |author-link=Pamela Jones |date=2007-01-08 |title=Expert Testimony of Ronald Alepin in Comes v. Microsoft - Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - Updated |url=http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557 |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070606205053/http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070108020408557 |archive-date=2007-06-06 |access-date=2012-06-02 |website=[[Groklaw]]}}
*{{Cite news |last=Erickson |first=Jonathan |date=2000-08-01 |title=Embrace, Extend, Extinguish: Three Strikes And You're Out |work=[[Dr. Dobb's Journal]] |publisher=[[UBM plc|UBM]] |url=https://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225 |url-status=live |access-date=2012-06-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120922112917/http://www.drdobbs.com/embrace-extend-extinguish-three-strikes/184404225 |archive-date=2012-09-22}}
{{Refend}}

==External links==
*[http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ The Halloween documents] ({{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108070408/http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/ |date=November 8, 2020}})

{{DEFAULTSORT:Microsoft Halloween Documents Leak}}
[[Category:1998 documents]]
[[Category:Microsoft criticisms and controversies]]
[[Category:History of free and open-source software|Halloween Documents]]
[[Category:Disinformation operations]]
[[Category:Internet leaks]]
[[Category:Memoranda]]
[[Category:Halloween events]]