Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations

abartlet writes "As described in this Advogato entry, MS is trying to pull a swifty with their latest 'release' of their CIFS (the networked filesystem Samba implements) Technical Reference. The licence specifically prohibits any GPLed or (or LGPLed) program from implementing it, defining it as an 'IPR Impairing Licence'! Fortunately the CIFS community is about to release its own Technical Reference based on earlier MS documents and long experience in attempting to interoperate with the MS product." Microsoft's claim is completely ungrounded - nothing written by a third-party can take away Microsoft's intellectual property rights. But it makes a good (read: confusing to the general public) justification for preventing others from interoperating with their software.

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ok so what....

[CDWert]

Implement any thing needed from the DOCUMENTATION in a Non-Gpl module, BSD, Apache, or other liscence.

This "LISCENCE" is for the documentation NOT the protocol. So friggin what, Samba team has done a great job reverse engineering other things before, wihtout docs.

Hell have a friend agree to the terms, read it, then TELL you how they do what they do, at that point there is no tactic agreement between you and microsoft, oyu recived the knowledge second hand and you partner had of course "no idea" that the information would be implemented in a GPL app.

Better yet, write a REVIEW of the documentation as a Journalist, a critique, perfectly acceptable under fair use laws, just make sure to critique the authors work on the spiciest bits of Information.

And the good news is

[photon317]

This is actually good news in a certain way. It is yet stronger proof that Microsoft considers the open source community a very viable and threatening competitor.

Most likely they hoped that if they could squash open-source compatibility with windows networks, they could hurt some of the interoperability that is neccesary during the middle phases of migrating a company away from Microsoft (like the recent Merrill Lynch stuff).

The tides are still very very slowly turning, and barring the government helping them too much (and I do believe SSSCA-type bills are a boon for Microsoft if they pass), they will eventually lose.

Re:And the good news is

[photon317]

Silly AC, comments are for users.

1 - "The viral nature of the GPL" is a bunch of crap. The counter-argument goes like this: I wrote my own damn code, and gave it to you for free. If you want to use it that's fine, but you have to give it away like I did. If you don't like that idea, then go write your own damn code. It's really that simple.

2 - Communism. Yeah so what if some FSF members support some whacked political theories. It doesn't have much bearing on the GPL. The GPL is not communism, it's more akin to realizing that software is much more like art or music than it is like a watch or an auto part, and the way we go about licensing, copyrighting, and patenting software should reflect this.

3 - Microsoft's "release of OSS code" and their attempt to join the OSS community and nothing but PR stunts. They have no interest in sharing any vital code under any reasonably open license. For that matter, they have a large interest in not letting anyone see their code, and in not letting anyone even know how to interoperate with it.

4 - Yes, some "OSS teams" produce commercial closed-source software, but they are in the minority and it's ok to bash them. For the most part OSS teams tend to go commercial in much nicer ways. Take a look at the Crossover plugin stuff related to the WINE code. They are selling a commercial product, but they're also giving the code back to the community where it belongs.

Re:Isn't this a bit like...

[dbrutus]

The really fun part is that, read carefully, it doesn't say that the GPL/LGPL is a "license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge."

In fact the GPL/LGPL are implied to be such licenses but MS is just going after them by name, not by characteristic. Create a license, called ALLGPL (Anti-Lawyering LGPL) that is cut and paste LGPL and it is not the LGPL, merely compatible with it. But MS then has the burden of proving that it is an IPR licenses which, of course, it is not.

Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid

[Angst Badger]

First of all, there is no way Microsoft can enforce conditions upon the implementation of a standard (read: "standard"). Entering into a contract requires, well, that you enter into a contract.

Secondly, this is a -- if not the -- prime example of what's wrong with the "intellectual property" faction of anti-GPL types. The GPL in no way inhibits intellectual property. It is simply a software license that imposes contractual conditions on the use of software. It is only unusual in that it does not require payment.

Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.

This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.

It's a pity that certain political factions like to lionize Microsoft as bastions of capitalism when Microsoft is itself devoted to strangling the free market at every turn. If Microsoft is as good as they say they are, why are they so afraid of competing in an open and fair market? Why have they adopted such a deeply un-American stance towards the fundamental values of political and economic liberty? Ballmer can spew all he wants about the GPL being communist, but as near as I can tell, it is Microsoft that is seeking to create a command economy.

Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA!

[torinth]

In other words, the DMCA requires that programmers be able to access parts of a computer program "to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs" (i.e. porting a windows program to linux). If that access isn't provided then the programmer can legally circumvent a technological measure that controls access to the essential parts of that program for the purposes of porting.

Who says that such access isn't provided? The CIFS licence above is for Royalty-free licensing. If you contact Microsoft and can negotiate a reasonable licensing agreement with them, then it certainly is provided. In which case, it's not a violation. Just because it can't be done free doesn't mean that it can't be done.

-Andrew

It is the *Patent* that is the problem.

[ProfDumb]

Most comments here, following the title of the orginal post, are focusing on the "license" to the tech specs, which is a minor problem.

The real problem is that MS is claiming a patent on the underlying technology. They are offering a royalty-free license to non-GPL software. This is hard for GPL software to get around.

Does anyone understand what is being patented? Does it look like a valid patent -- I never got the feeling that this technology was particularly innovative.

Re:BSD license

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Because we don't all agree on the BSD license. I won't
work on any BSD licensed code any more for example.

Look at the reasons that Wine changed from BSD style
licensing to LGPL for a clue as to why that might be....

Regards,

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

This has got to be...

[talks_to_birds]

...the clearest thinking I've read so far:

From Advogato:

• "...But one thing is certain: the open-source community must try to break free from the current situation of constantly chasing Microsoft's tail. Right now, when Microsoft creates SMB, someone tries to clone SMB; when Microsoft creates .NET, someone tries to clone .NET; when Microsoft creates Word, someone tries to clone Word; and so on. This definitely won't do..."

It's simply time to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and go our own way.

F*ck Micro$oft; f*ck interoperability with Micro$oft; let Micro$oft and its ilk rot in hell, stewed in their own juices, which they most certainly will.

Two worlds, one the world of darkness, and one the world of light.

Guess which one is Micro$oft?

Which one will you join?

t_t_b