> You need the binary, the assets, and the environment it can be hosted in. Those are the requirements for making it easy to host it in an alternative location

> You need the binary, the assets, and the environment it can be hosted in. Those are the requirements for making it easy to host it in an alternative location. Laws for incompatibility don't need nor usually require it to be easy, only possible. Microsoft was able to release the network protocol for smb without releasing the binary, the assets, or the environment for their Microsoft server. They were able to release the network protocol without needing to be responsible for the development and maintenance of samba. Microsoft is not in any form responsible for security vulnerabilities in samba. If Ubisoft released the protocol for Assassin's Creed 2 multiplayer then the only person responsible software updates would be the group implementing that protocol. A law requiring that minimum disclosure would not be expensive nor take a lot of work (unless the protocol documentation is conveniently deleted). The biggest issue would be certificates, but if companies know before hand that protocol and authorized keys need to be published by the end of the product life, then companies will plan ahead to make those things easy for them. People who run companies can plan ahead when they are required to do so.