Who Owns ActiveX?

David Chappell

A key factor in the move to make ActiveX a multi-platform technology is Microsoft's much-publicized dealings with the Open Group. Formed from the merger of X/Open and the Open Software Foundation, the Open Group is one of the last remaining organizations from the heyday of open systems. It's been widely reported that Microsoft was giving control of core ActiveX technologies to the Open Group. But a careful reading of what Micro soft has actually said on the subject makes clear that this isn't the case.

The initial Microsoft press release on this topic, dating from July 1996, begins, "Microsoft Corp. today announced plans for fulfilling its vision of openness for ActiveX by transitioning specifications and appropriate technology to an industry-standards body." This is not quite the same thing as giving control. Later that year, Microsoft group vice president Paul Maritz state d that the goal of the process was to "make sure that the technology is made available to the industry in an open manner and ensure that there is an efficient, open process for the future."

In the October, 1996, announcement reporting the results of a vote taken by potential participants in the ActiveX standardization process, Microsoft states, "The Open Group has been selected by Microsoft ActiveX stakeholders to provide leadership in the evolution and deployment of ActiveX core technologies." Note again that the word "control" is never used. The announcement goes on to say, "The Active Group, to be formed under the auspices of The Open Group, will manage the evolution of ActiveX technologies. It will take advantage of The Open Group services ..."

What seems most likely here is that the future direction of COM and ActiveX technologies will still be determined by Microsoft. The Active Group will be composed of companies that want to promote and proliferate COM and DCOM technologies. The Active Group will, as Microsoft has stated, make use of the Open Group's services where relevant or needed, but they will not be under its thumb. For example, the Open Group has a mechanism in place for licensing software on an equal basis to all comers, and Microsoft has allowed them to license the code for COM and DCOM to other vendors. But the Active Group's primary purpose will be proliferation and promotion, not providing a formal venue for defining the future of ActiveX.

This arrangement is reminiscent of the Java world, where a single vendor (JavaSoft, i.e., Sun) takes input from other vendors and users, then determines technology directions based on that input and on its own desires. Both leading object technologies -- ActiveX/COM and the Java environment -- are now controlled by single vendors. Our industry has finally learned a crucial lesson: Technologies controlled by slow-moving standards bodies can't keep up with rapidly changing markets.