Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sure, he may be trying to make it so that Linux won't interoperate with Windows, but maybe he's just trying to get revenge for being tricked?
libertarianswag.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If they don't read the document, they're not bound to the license, and can still reverse engineer it, right?
Lendrick
That any license can say anything it wants to. It doesn't mean that this has any basis in legal reality. The point here is, truly, confusion over all else.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
APL BPL CPL DPL EPL FPL GPL HPL IPL
Why not use every letter in the alphabet? It's only fitting, I guess, since there are a million ways to write code, why not have a million ways to license it?
I remember taking programming classes in college, and the #1 rule to writing code was don't write code, i.e., reuse existing code. With all these licensing schemes floating around, that's getting harder and harder, unles you only reuse your own code. Oh well...
(For the record, IPR sounds more like an Apple licenesing idea, what with the iMac, iPod, and tons of iSoftware.)
At least today's Friday...
-Space for rent
I'm not reading any of that. The further away from licenses like that I can stay, the better off I am when the SSSCA/DMCA squad comes to kick down my door with their jack-boots.
Seriously. If you're even using Samba, I wouldn't go *near* any CIFS/SMB information released by Microsoft. Or anyone else who attaches licenses to practical information and calls it a "trade secret", for that matter.
Go to the linked MSDN doc, and "Rate this Page". We can at least register our disgust that way.... (It's already at 1.3 out of 5, 1 being the lowest possible :-)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Using GPL
Will encroach upon our rights
To control the world
Kodak saying no one else can make a set of chemicals that develop their film if they plan to give them away for free? Is there really legal ground for them to uphold this, especially having already been judged a monopoly in federal appeals court?
It is well known that one of the places that Window's succeeds in is small/middle sized network configurations. You plug in hardware, install (costly) software, and everything nearly automagically works. Files are shared. Printers are shared. With a little domain administration you can even tightly control it.
The fact that the Samba Team has created such a successful implementation of the same smb/cifs kills this completely. Note the "(costly)" part in my previous paragraph goes away if you use Samba instead of a WinNT Server. And no goofy licenses either(how many seats do I need to buy?). And now that Samba has set their sights on implementing recent features like Active Directory why wouldn't Microsoft be running scared? Take away this feature from Windows and you've undercut their monopoly on administration software of Windows networks.
So we just license the implementing programs with NGPL. Not-GPL, that is. It just so happens that the license terms are exactly the same as GPL but it is not GPL.
Kind of like gnu is not unix.. I just couldn't come up with anything as clever.
This is kinda creepy.
Microsoft seems to have just banned any open source or even free (as in beer) CIFS implementations.
Then, my question becomes: what about interpreted languages? Many languages don't have a compiled form... does the license prohibit those?
Many other organization baulk at GPL.
Intel and HP for example had problems with the GPLed Mono project.
Microsoft seems to be OK with the BSD license. The don't seem to be against open source either
considering that the Microsoft Shared source code licence is pretty liberal.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any 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.
Note the "or (c)"; oh no, free of charge! What will those godless zealots think of next, and how will Scrooge McDuck hold onto his billions this week!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It's an antimatter version of the GPL, like a GPL from the parallel Star Trek universe where everyone was evil.
Microsoft has gone ballistic. It has begun.
until noone is listening. There are tons of folks out here in support land that are getting fed up with the askew view those chowder heads keep spewing. Mark my words, Ross Perot will laugh at just how out of the loop those guys will have gotten themselves with their "you can't do anything unless we say" rhetoric. Seems to me that they are on a one way trip to being ignored after all the stuff they have been pulling the past few years.
This isn't my area of experise... but would it be possible for an open source implementation to be made for Windows? Samba for windows? If it is good enough, then the growing numbers of companies out there that want Windows and Linux to interoperate will have an alternative from the M$ machine with all the benefits of the free (both senses) world. The implementation could be independent on any M$ specification and thus be free from any M$ restriction completely
Microsoft Client for Windows
Microsoft Client for Netware
Microsoft Client for What Windows Should Be
World Standard Client (CIFS)
Click here or here.
That's what we said about the entire EULA until UCITA made it 100% binding - even the most outrageous parts (like not being able to unfavorably comment on the software).
These guys are not buying legalese for nothing. And even if the next round of bought-and-paid-for legislation doesn't make it on the books for a year or two, and they bring a baseless lawsuit, do you have $200,000 to defend yourself in court? Or will you just settle, pull your site and go home crying?
This is Microsoft saying "I dare you."
-David
We're on the road to Tycho.
Okay, which is it?
I have read the patent page and I have read other articles. Some say it's Server Message Block and some (such as the patent page) say it's System Message Block. Which is it? What's the authoratative answer? I realize it's almost pointless but it's just one of those things that when explained improperly could make you appear to be an idiot to the wrong people.
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.
11*43+456^2
I suspect that they are worried that a bit of GPLed code will somehow make it into a bit of the windows codebase - intentionally or otherwise.
;)
It only takes one programmer on the MS campus to fuck up and that could happen. I imagine that they're worried that then people would start taking them to court to gain access to the code.
C'mon - if you heard that MS has some GPLed code in Windows - which would you put your weght behind:
a) They just take the code out
b) They are forced to open their codebase
Yup - though so!
At the top of the license page there is an option to "Rate this page" The score is from 1 to 5. Right now its at 1.5 with 230 votes and growing.
I had to give them my 2 cents. I voted a 1.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It just goes on and on and on. It's like those people in the antitrust trial are lost in space, wasting vast amounts of time and effort dwelling over finer and finer points of legalese (which is exactly what Msft wants, splitting hairs indefinately) while the abuse of power goes on and on and on.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
APL BPL CPL DPL EPL FPL GPL HPL IPL...
I work at a bank where we still (duh) use big iron. One thing you DO NOT want to do is IPL.
It's very bad, especially if someone tries to do it while people in other timezones are usings those mainframe apps!
(For the uninitiated, IPL = Initial Program Load. It basically means restart the whole group of apps on the machine. In the old days, I'm betting this meant rewind the tape and reboot the room... er, mainframe.)
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
This has some far reaching effects.
Many manufacturers of NAS (Network Attached Storage) use GPLed OS that have been modified or reduced to their basic components to NAS appliances. I have seen many instances of Linux NAS devices, BSD NAS devices, and yes, NAS devices bases on Windows 2000 for appliances.
A little background:
A NAS device is an appliance dedicated to providing storage on the IP network. It's basically a stripped standard server with ease-of-use features added, and form-fitted into a smaller box. Extremely easy to set up, extremely easy to use.
Companies that make them:
Quantum Snap! www.quantum.com
Maxtor www.maxtor.com
Network Appliance www.netapp.com
IOMEGA www.iomega.com
Blue Arc www.bluearc.com
and the list goes on and on.
They all provide CIFS and NFS shares, some of the also provide Apple shares, and Novell shares. The point here is that many of them are based on GPLed OS. While their final product may be commercial, this development may restrict their use of CIFS. These products RELY on CIFS. Frankly this may be a ploy by Microsoft to sell more copies of Windows 2000 for Appliances, and take a heavy swipe at the Open Source community.
If NAS vendors can't use CIFS, and the latest CIFS has changed to mess up connectivity, they are dead in two years, as the OS upgrades catch up.
If there is a somebody who could clear that up a bit, that would be great.
I, for one, hope that continued compatibility for the CIFS standard continues in the Samba package. For Linux to lose that functionality, it would kill a lot of possible server implementations.
>2) I am sure that it'd be handy for you to think
>the government was bought in this case. It
>wasn't. From the tone of your article though it
>doesn't sound like you are interested in the
>legal reasons that the DOJ settled
the legal reason to settle? for christs sakes, they've been CONVICTED of leveraging a monopoly illegally.
convicted. guilty.
do you give a convicted murderer probation? i dont think so.
... hi bingo
Note that this is not analogous to the GPL. The GPL is a license that lets you do things with copyrighted software that copyright law prohibits you from doing unless you get a license. But that approach doesn't work for a protocol specification because the copyright is on the specification, not the protocol, and so you generally don't need a license in order to implement the protocol even if the specification is copyrighted. (It may be possible to copyright protocols, but that seems like a long shot for something like CIFS that's mostly open anyway.)
This license gaffe is curiously analogous to Microsoft software. Usually, Microsoft copies other people's software badly. This time, Microsoft copied other people's licenses (the GPL) badly, trying to impose onerous restrictions on people who merely read a document. Microsoft's incompetence manages to reach new lows day after day, and I suppose that is an amazing achievement in itself.
The most effective strategy I can think of to fight such legalese is to amend the GPL to allow for a special MS-GPL, which would essentially allow you to release an otherwised GPL'd software that interacts with a Microsoft patent, as a special MS-GPL which would require you to still make the source code available, as well as all changes, but would also *require* you to charge $0.01 per copy of the binary code that the software developer releases, thereby negating the free-of-charge stipulation under Microsoft's IPR clause.
Microsoft will most likely amend their agreement to forbid releasing the software under the MS-GPL code, as well. However I would think it would be more legally difficult to distinguish an MS-GPL from a regular software license.
Rate it here. I personnaly rated it as excellent.
/. effect for polls as well ? :-)
Is there a
Reverse engineered is not a copy, you idiot!
As long as the samba team uses no documents from Microsoft, they can make samba interact with Microsoft file systems.
Compaq did this with the PC Bios, it is well established practice.
The DMCA might make reverse engineering illegal, though, but I think when push comes to shove on this the Supreme Court should help reverse engineering make the DMCA illegal.
I suspect that they are worried that a bit of GPLed code will somehow make it into a bit of the windows codebase - intentionally or otherwise.
I don't think they're worried about that much at all. It just makes a good excuse to shut out anything GPLed, because it cuts into their sales.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, Microsoft's accusers would certainly want you to believe my client was issuing confusing EULAs, confoundint their critics and confusing the multitudes, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.
I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when billions of dollars of recurring license revenue are on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests."
1) MS is trying to make OS illegal, by means of GPL. That's the easist target for them.
2) They were. What legal reasons do YOU have for the DOJ settling? AFAIK DOJ proved MS guilty, and in the penalty phase, they said "We can't prove MS guilty, so we will take the coward's way out"
3) $40 billion in the bank buys you lots of senators, and congressmen, and judges, etc,etc.
4) MS is in the middle of a mud-flinging campain right now. They'll (try to) make it illegal within 3 years. They like BSD because they can steal from it, without contributing. (And that's the point, and we like it that way!)
5) Good point.
6) True.
Microsoft outlawed the GPL. We all know it was coming.
Linus, if you need help installing XP on all your machines, give me a call.
-Spack
DMCA(f) reads:
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
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.
I say we should rally the EFF and call them on it.
I also liked the idea posted about separating the CIFS code into a separate library. Then GPL code could link it in.
It's a shame, however, that thinking rationally probably doesn't count when it comes to Microsoft. Knowing Microsoft's history, this probably isn't about these things, but is some devious plot to divide and conquer the various open/free source crowds and to introduce FUD.
Shame it's come to this, isn't it? Kind of like a mate of yours who betrays you over and over and then when they finally may be telling the truth, you just can't come to believe it's possible.
That's what Microsoft tries to achieve: get developers to read the text, then wait until a patch from one of these developers appears in the samba sources.
Wait a bit, then sue. The difficult part is proving that the patch author has read the CIFS docs, but Microsoft has enough money to find an expert that proves that a certain information was not found through reverse engineering.
The Samba team must document every reverse engeneering step.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Its kinda funny that the thing that has helped M$ bcome who and what they are is now the object of their attacks. If someone had not come up with a Blind Reverse ENG of the IBM BIOS for all those clones they would never be in the position they are in. yet when someone manages to reverse eng one of their specs....!
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Could this not be considered discrimination?
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Funny how MS constantly says Linux and Open Source Software is bad and horrible and how no one should ever need to use it. Then MS comes out with license agreements like this to try and force people to not use OSS. If OSS is really as bad a solution to a problem as MS says then why must MS attack it? Hmmmm.. makes you wonder just how scared MS really is of OSS and how they are trying not to show it.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please, that's the biggest load of BS. The license is completely invalid and unenforcible.
This is really an ANTI-GPL. Basically, it says you can't releasee any implementations under a GPL'ed license. Too bad for MS its totally unenforcible. GPL developers can release anonymously, and are all accross the world.
They could ignore this and MS wouldn't be able to do a thing.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think what they are saying is "you have to charge for it, because even if you don't we will come after you and make you empty your wallet for violating our patents". Evil bastards. They are planning on beating up Samba developers and stealing their lunch money, basically?
I ask this as retorical.
;-)
why not just charge 1 cent and make it a community practice forget got collect.
I mean the home beer makers have long gotten paid by peaple wanting to clean bottls that contain bad beer
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.
Why shouldn't microsoft explicitly prohibit GPL'd code from linking to their libraries if the GPL explicitly prohibits proprietary close software from doing the same thing! Thats a bit hypocrytical to complain about this...
How can the license be legally binding?
If you are stupid enough to sign and return it, it most certainly is legally binding.
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology.
Why think these days when you can just be told what to do and how to act. I took the red pill.....
Is that kinda like the XFL?
"You may use, modify, and redistribute this software freely, and must make it available to third parties under this license in the event that they are able to defeat you in a Grudge Match in The Iron Cage of Fury!"
Brilliant! If I had points I'd mod you up!
-- MarkusQ
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any 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.
So why doesn't GNU sue MS for anti-competitive practices?
4) Has Microsoft ever contributed a single piece of code in a BSD license? They don't like the GPL because they can't leech off it. Well boo hoo.
------ Warning! You are too close!
Now that the other reference is out, and presumably will not carry any of the baggage associated with the MSTR, obviously this will be the reference used and distributed to Samba developers. The most important message regarding all of this is that it appears that sworn notarized affidavits will now be required to work on Samba. That's just extra hassle, but it's best to do this as safely as possible to avoid the legal stranglehold.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
Microsoft has never tried to make GPL illegal. They dont like it. They do like the idea of free code though. They make it plainly clear that they support the BSD style license.
And I can bet you ANYTHING that if it was one of the BSDs that was threatening to take over their marketshare, they'd be singing a different tune about the BSD license.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
First, let's take a look at their little clause on you not implementing this:
Pretty straight forward, but keep in mind that individuals fall under the category of "Company" since they're using the term interchangeably with "the undersigned." Here's where it gets really interesting is in the definitions of their terms:
Yes, it specifically names the GPL and LGPL, but it isn't limited to those two! It applies to any license requiring an open source distribution, the ability to derive something else from it (whatever they mean by that....), or requires the implementation to be free!
Ok...so we alrady knew that M$ has it out for open-source, but it seems they're trying to be a little sneaky about it in the next part...here's where anti-competitive tactics come into play(yeah...I know...we already knew about those too).
Let's now look at their definition of "Company Implementation" as used in Section 3.3 above.
What's this mean? Well, it means that M$ has a way of getting out of being "totally" against open source development by basically saying "Hey...we want you to still distribute free/open source implementations...just make sure it's only for an MS OS." Obviously, this is also an attack on Linux and any other OS, as well as popular implementations of CIFS on these platforms, such as SAMBA.
If it weren't for "double jeopardy" laws, Microsoft would probably be in and out of court on a daily basis, purely for anti-competitive business tactics.
US software patents apply anyway. No doubt over time you will see microsoft try and eliminate free software from the USA. Quite what they think will happen when software is 100 times cheaper abroad than the USA I'm not sure.
It does maybe also explain the US governments position and desire to look the other way and not punish microsoft. Perhaps they think that a combination of draconian patent lobbying world wide combined with Microsoft co-operation will let them suck all the money out of foreign developing nations by enforcing windows (plus NSAKEY and the like) on any that threaten to become the new economic powers.
So much for "We are already complying with the RPFJ, even though those evil states are blocking it".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Some of the documentation that comes with Samba points out that other Microsoft docs are almost useless. Microsoft's own implementations of CIFS differ from the standard in ways that could be called bugs if you're charitable or obfuscation if not. They had to do a lot of packet sniffing to get Samba to actually work. What's even worse is that the kludgy workarounds differ depending on whether it's 95, 98 or what have you.
IANAL, but I find that funny. How can this hold up in court? What if I were to pick up the document and browse it WITHOUT reading the agreement? I haven't read it, so there fore it can't be binding to me because I can randomly pick a page and read without read the agreement? What if the agreement is torn out of the document by person A, and person B picks up the document and reads some pages fromthe document? Technically, they haven't read or agreed to the the agreement and the can't read it because it's gone.
Did anyone not see this coming? Really, this is not a surprise. It still falls under they same anti-competitive tactics they have been using for a while. I hope this hurts the movement into the Colleges with their shared source attempts. Maybe the will shoot their own foot. Either way, this is more cannon fodder for the plethera of lawsuits out their! Can Microsoft be this stupid? They keep abusing there powers.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
1) Microsoft is not on a crusade against Open Source, or Free Software. It is on a crusade against the GPL. Notice the BSD license is perfectly valid under this license.
I wonder... would it be perfectly legitimate to write a BSD-compatible version of the protocol/software, and then simply relicense it as GPL?
I mean, the original license is compatible, it's just that the BSD not only allows open source software to move to a more restrictive, closed license but also to move to a different open source license.
Surely someone knows someone else in China, who can pose as frontman. I can't imagine China is going to take bossing-around by Microsoft at all well.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
C'mon - if you heard that MS has some GPLed code in Windows - which would you put your weght behind:
a) They just take the code out
b) They are forced to open their codebase
I don't have the $$ or legal staff to force option B. What I'd rather see happen is that MS gets sued for damages for violating the software's license, and that money go towards paying people who developed the GPL'ed code.
Can Microsoft legally prohibit the creation of GPL'd software with their software development tools? Really, this isn't a troll or flamebait, but an actual, honest question.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
It seems pretty straightforward: if you want to read/access the document you must be agree to the terms. Samba reverse engineered its implementation, and so, therefore, does not need to follow this license or view the documment.
Not in patent law. Microsoft has patented methods used to authenticate users in their networked file system. Microsoft can deny ANYONE the right to use this authentication mechanism using any terms they like. Reverse engineering is fine for circumventing methods decsribed in copyrighted works; it is useless against patent protection.
I didn't read fully the gist of what Microsoft did, but it certainly seems like they just made it illegal to use a GPLd SAMBA that uses their patented authentication, and forced anyone else to get a license from them to use the SMB protocol.
Let's not follow microsoft here - publish our own "Samba" specification as an open specification available to everybody and prohibit microsoft from using it.
:-)
Time to start our own embrace & extend operation here
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So interoperability supposedly risks loss of IP. If merely working together risks pollution, one would presume that working together by design, with knowledge of the "dangerous" side, with no alternative on the "dangerous" side would be even more risky.
MicroSoft software-produced documents fit in this category. If the GPL is a threat to MicroSoft, then MicroSoft is similarly a threat to all of their customers.
Of course, MicroSoft is doing this both to be inconvenient to open-source competition, and to put fear of the GPL in people's minds. But this also raises the possibility that MicroSoft will decide that they want to put you out of business and take all of your IP, and that they seem to think that would be possible.
Forget about the fact that Microsoft's attempts at restricting open source implementations are bogus. Let's ask: why even waste time on CIFS? Is enabling Windows clients to talk to non-Windows servers even the right thing to do? And if it is, why use CIFS? It seems to me that developing an installable file system driver that speaks a high-quality open protocol (NFS doesn't qualify) would result in something that's both easier to maintain and would work better than trying to reverse engineer Microsoft's latest protocol hiccup.
Sure it is. It's when you break the big prong off of the 3-prong plug, and plug the computer in anyway. The computer is then "ungrounded".
Alternatively, it's when you do something to redeem yourself in the eyes of your parents when you had previously been in trouble for mischief. When the sentence is lifted, you have been "ungrounded".
Finally, it's what happened a few days after September 11 when the planes started flying again, as the FAA had stopped all flights while security measures were enhanced. The first plane to lift off that day became "ungrounded".
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL, but I found this statement particularly interesting.
So if this is true, and the samba folks violate the license, won't Microsoft, as the property owner, be compelled to show damage from violation of the license? Microsoft could (probably) claim that they experienced damages from any free (including GPL) implementation of those specs. But could they demonstrate damages specific to a GPL implementation? If not, why not just violate the license?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
There's an easy bypass to such nonsense.
The Microsoft license doesn't prohibit BSD-like licenses (MS loves swiping BSD code). So, developer A uses the specs to implement a bare-bones BSD version, and releases that code only to developer B. Developer B then makes a derivative work of that, fleshing out the details, making it much more useful, etc, and releases that version under the GPL. (Nothing in the BSD prevents this.)
Now, of course, anyone is free to use the original BSD'd code in a non-GPL manner -- if they can figure out which code that is! Since the original BSD version was never publicly released, they have no way of doing that, so they have to use the GPLd version.
(Usual IANAL disclaimer applies, though.)
-- Alastair
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sue for what? What if a university or college student did this on his own time, for instance? Students usually don't own much property, they MIGHT have a car, but they probably take the bus or maybe cycle to school. They probably rent an apartment rather than have a mortgage, and they are probably getting further in debt every year from borrowing money through student financial assistance. So as it sits, most students are probably teetering on what many would consider bankruptcy already. What would Microsoft, or any company for that matter, have to benefit from suing such a person? As far as I can see, they would have _nothing_ to gain. Of course, they could wait until the guy was out of school, has a good job, and _then_ sue him, but if the guy's only in second year or so, that could be a somewhat longish wait. I wouldn't be surprised it there was a statute of limitation for something like that.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does anyone remember when Microsoft released Novell NetWare compatibility into its Windows NT operating systems? At that time, Novell was the dominant player, and Microsoft was playing catchup.
Microsoft quickly eroded Novell's network operating system market share, eventually becoming the dominant player in office network servers. Novell Netware installations now seem a rarity.
Microsoft, the dominant player, is now threatened by people creating compatible implementations of its own services. This turn of events, though not surprising, somehow seems ironic.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
No, what this says (as a practical matter) is that you are not licensed to implement the "inventions" disclosed in the listed patents ("Necessary Claims") under the GPL or related licenses. I don't see the problem, if the patents are valid (which is questionable) - a patent by design gives the holder the right to exclude others from implementing the technology it discloses. Overall, MS is more or less licensing the patents freely to the extent that one might wish to develop a full non-Windows implementation of the spec described in the Technical Reference so long as the implementation does not fall under a so-called "IPR" license (and so long as you agree to cross-license back to MS any patents you hold that a MS CIFS implementation would infringe).
MS apparently thinks that you cannot implement the described spec without infringing the patents.
No, you are thinking of MODULE_LICENSE_GPL. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is about making it hard for binary driver writers to write drivers (because it took Alan so much time to write his 15 lines of code). Read the fucking thread instead of smiling wanly, man.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
Sure you can. The harm to consumers is in directly denying them their choice. Consumers overwhelmingly chose netscape until MS made it a violation of their OEM license agreement to preinstall netscape. Microsoft's actions harmed consumers by denying them their choice.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
1.2 "Company Implementation" shall mean only those portions of the software developed by Company that implement CIFS for use on Non-Microsoft Platforms.
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any 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.
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License.
I see nothing that says I cannot stand up and do a dramatic reading of my source code. Section A of the "imparing license" claims that you cannot distribute in source form, so does that mean in binary form only? What about interpreded form, just as java byte code... that is neither source-code, or compiled code... but neither? Also, the GNU, and derivitaves, are mentioned by name... very strange! Section B claims that you cannot realease your implementaion for the purpose of derivitave works, but since you cannot release the implementaion in source form, basically mean nothing, right? The 3rd part (section c) about releaseing your implementaion at no cost to others.
So the way I read it is that I can create my implementaion, release it under the BSD license, and charge a penny for it. I would have to use JAVA since the byte code is not technically source code. Or perhaps a mathmatical modeling language... is this thingking wrong?
Lastly, since the form requires a signatory, does that mean if I do't sign, that I can do whatever I wish?
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license
Creepy, well, ok... I almost always find MSFT creepy.
But read that again:
Doesn't it say that it forbids you to use a license which requires OTHER SOFTWARE distributed with yours to be subject to those conditions?
What the hell kind of license does that? GPL only covers derivative works, not other works distributed with the GPL'd original, no?
3) a google search will provide a lot of information. This link provides a good summary. i would say for infants they are quick learners.
-- john
Is there any particular reason a CIFS implementor would have to agree to the terms of this license? The Samba guys have done just fine so far.
BTW, didn't Microsoft try similar shit (although without specifically attacking GPL) with proprietary Kerberos-like protocol's documentation? They were openly defied without consequences.
Licensing the specification for a so-called "standard"... what arrogance and cluelessness. The Ogg and PNG guys get it. The LZW and MPEG and Microsoft guys don't. That's why people are actively working to phase them out.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
From the advogato articles quote on what constitutes a so-called "IPR impairing license":
[...]or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
Apparently, merely "not charging money for redistribution" counts as "IPR Impairing" according to the whacked-out crack-smokers at MS's legal department...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The fellow has a point here. A legal loophole that we might exploit is the same one that Microsoft would exploit to take advantage of BSD licensed code.
Once the sourcecode changes hands ONCE, it can be relicensed. Just create a new license that would allow distribution only to certain parties that would then turn around and relicense it under the GPL.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'd be interested to see Miguel de Icaza's rationale for why this can never happen to Dotnet and so entrap his Mono development. From any legal perspective, I can't see how one could distinguish between knowledge needed for interoperability, as with SAMBA, and Mono's need to know Dotnet details for portability.
Personally, I think that the extraordinarily destructive nature of Mono has yet to be perceived. Currently, most people probably view it as one more string to Linux's bow. Intentionally or not, it nevertheless marginalizes original developments such as Parrot. Once Linux devices on non-i86 platforms start proliferating, a void will emerge for cross-platform software support, and the options to fill it will be very limited. Let's hope IBM and Sun's commitment to the somewhat more ethical Java platform stays solid or we could be looking at a corporate coup of epic proportions.
Unlike what Slashdot posters would have you believe, MS loves the idea of open source and an open development community. They have been posting more and more of their standards online.
However, MS is clear that they do not like rabid liberal OpenSores Militancy as defined in the GPL. They like people to have choice and the GPL represents the same kind of lock-in that MS you to do in the Bad Old Days.
MS freely supports FreeBSD and other BSD-style licensed products.
Just so ya'll are clear...
Doesn't change the fact that MS's actions caused consumers harm by precluding a consumer having it preinstalled on their system.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Microsoft have indicated in at least one public forum that this is the case. The legalisms are there for the sole purpose of protecting their patent rights.
The courts have of late become inclined to invalidate patent licenses under an emerging doctrine similar to that of copyright abuse. Essentially if you encourage people to use a technology that you have filed patent claims on in certain ways the courts can decide to revoke the patent. This was done for a patent that covered EISA bus which covered technology that had been proposed to the standards committee without disclosure of the IP claims.
The issue on GPL is hardly suprising and in no way prevents anyone's ability to develop open source. All it does is to prevent the open source authors from placing certain restrictions on the re-use of that software that Microsoft objects to. The Samba people can still distribute code for free, they can distribute the source for free. What they cannot do is to place restrictions on their code that prevent others from modifying the code as they might want to.
GPL is an exercise in control-freakery, Microsoft don't want to be controlled by RMS. The spat is somewhat amusing but has no real consequences.
Let us imagine that someone does write an implementation and distributes it with a BSD license and someone else takes the code modifies it and sells the result. Just how exactly is that outcome meant to be baaaaaad? The original freeware version is still out there.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
So under C are all free licenses disqualified? I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
a license fee of one wet honey glazed ham is due if the software is used consecutively for more than sixty thousand years.
I find the terms of the MS compatible GPL to be far too restrictive.
First, 60,000 years is far too short. I fully intend to be alive, youthful, and in perfect health in 60,000,000 years. Second, at that time, swine from whence honey glazed ham is made may well be extinct, and while genetic decendents of Long Pigs such as Bill Gates and the Honorable Senator "Disney" Hollings may still be present, honey made hams made from such creatures may not strictly qualify under the terms of the license, making it impossible to adhere to the terms of the license at all upon its termination in a short 60,000 years.
Instead, may I recommend a termination date 60x10^4000 years, and a fee payable in 1 cm^3 of common hydrogen or the equivelent converted energy thereof, calculated from Einstein's e=mc^2, payable upon that date, or the final death of the universe, whichever comes first?
That would offer the freedom I require, and the payment option (a cubic centimeter of hydrogen) is likely to be obtainable even in 60x10^4000 years, assuming the other criteria of the license termination (the end of the universe itself) hasn't taken effect.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
None of the FSF members support any such 'whacked' political theories AFAIK. Certainly not RMS, to whome such nonesense is most often attributed.
While your overall point is correct, you are inadvertently buying into a portion of the very disinformation and FUD you are trying to combat, specificially a great deal of the anti-RMS ad-homonem, and baseless, attacks that make such accusations in the complete absence of any evidence to substantiate them.
RMS isn't and never was a communist, regardless of what his detractors would have you believe. Lacking in tact, and often diplomancy, yet, but an adherent to 'whacked' political theories? No.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Wasn't there a DMCA suit threatened because someone on Slashdot did just that -- used an external "unzip" program to extract the PDF out of a self-extracting archive, and in so doing, bypassed the clickwrap license?
IANAL, but inclined to disagree with that comment. 'Harm' can come to consumers even if they initially benefit, ie, free browsers (which in itself can be contested by saying that the inclusion of IE is priced into the base product, one can't determine it continues to be 'free'). The breakup of Standard Oil was done because of the monopoly and practices used to destroy competition. Before they started driving competition out of business, consumers paid more. WHILE it was occuring, consumers actually benefited, since Standard underpriced all the competition by selling at a loss, the intent to put them out of business, which forced cheaper prices to all consumers at the time by both Standard AND the competition. The problem, and conclusion, was that once the competition was driven out of business, the consumers were harmed because without competition there was no compelling reason for pricing to the consumer to be reasonable and they rose to levels harming the consumer. Harm to the consumer, it would seem, therefore does not have to be determined DURING the illegal practices, and can even benefit the consumer while the practices are in place. (And if the MS browser, is indeed, determined to be 'free', one has to assume MS is 'selling' it at a loss since they didn't exactly develop it without cost. After all, it wasn't a one time 'sale' to get market share.)
Let's examine the choice of words, and their implications:
Well well. Note that there are no open source-ish licenses that attempt to impose terms on software "distributed with" the licensed software. In fact, the only such license I can think of off the top of my head that attempts to impose restrictions on related (not linked) software is... this one.
The LGPL doesn't do this. The full GPL doesn't do it. That's why there's an "and", not an "or" after the GPL/LGPL prohibition, as these licenses are not representative of the following prohibitions.
They don't mention the word, but they like to refer to the GPL as "viral" because it effects source linked to (not "distributed with") it. But the LGPL has no such effect. It's substantially similar to the Mozilla or Artistic licenses, neither of which are prohibited by this Microsoft license.
I think this is clear. This isn't about "viral" licenses like the GPL, because it covers the LGPL specifically as well. It's not about open source licenses in general (because none of them - including the LGPL and GPL - meet the "other software distributed with" condition). This is an open declaration of war only on the GPL and LGPL, and therefore on the FSF itself. Well, well, well.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Knowing Microsoft, their next step will be to implement a completely new filesystem, encourage (force)
everyone to upgrade, and protect it with encryption (if they claim that the encryption is
for protection of a user's intellectual property, then perhaps the DMCA would have more teeth
in this situation), and/or patents (somewhat akin to what they did with ASF).
You sir have hit the nail right on the head!
Here it is:
MS to overhaul files for next Windows
-DF
That is, they like it as long as they can be parasites.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"End User" shall mean a third party customer or potential customer to whom a copy of Company Implementation is licensed, delivered, or otherwise provided primarily for such customer's or potential customer's use, and not for further sublicense or distribution.
You can't sublicense the Company Implementation. I think releasing to PD would count as 'sublicensing'.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can microsoft stop someone from implementing the Technical Reference without signing the license agreement? Not unless they have a patent on the technology
Microsoft have indicated in at least one public forum that this is the case. The legalisms are there for the sole purpose of protecting their patent rights.
Then I don't see any problem with it. The GPL says "You can use our intellectual property (copyrighted work) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the Microsoft EULA".
The Microsoft EULA says "You can use our intellectual property (patented process) - but if you create a derivitive you can't release it under the GPL".
To be honest, I think that's pretty funny.
The MSGPL license, for GPL implementations of MS protocols need only include the clause that changes must be available in source code form or in binary digits tattooed across the backside of the author, and that a license fee of one wet honey glazed ham is due if the software is used consecutively for more than sixty thousand years.
You're not looking nearly close enough. Notice:
What does this say? It says that your license can't affect other software distributed with your software. For example, say I write an implementation of ls and an implementation of cat. Under a clause like this, the license for cat can't require that I release ls under a license requiring one of (a),(b), or (c) above. Note that the GPL doesn't even go this far. The GPL requires that extensions to the software be released under the same license. That's extensions, as in part of the same software, not other software, as defined in the license. It does not require that software released in the same tarball be released under the GPL. I can write my cat implementation under the GPL and my ls implementation under the BSD license, tar them up together, and release them.
In essence, the licensing restriction here has no teeth to bite with, because aside from explicitly mentioning the GPL/LGPL licenses, it prohibits licenses which don't even exist.
Well said.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
That said, look at section 7.7 of the license:This is effectively a 'poison pill' provision. Section 3.3 details IPR Impairing License Restrictions. So, 7.7 says that if the Judge in the antitrust trial says "no, that's monopolistic, you can't do that", then MS pulls the entire license, and no one gets to play!
Sections 3.6 and 3.7 (Reciprocal Patent License and Defensive Suspension) combined prevent anyone from filing suit for patent infringement if they (a) hold patents, or can sublicense patnts without a fee, that apply to CIFS, and (b) implement CIFS.
In fact, section 3.6 is very important:Now, isn't the bolded section a 'Viral License'?!?
We are the Music Makers, and We are the Dreamers of Dreams...
This always comes up. What, do you think Microsoft are
:-).
*stupid* or something ?
Do you actually think they document the internal interfaces
needed to write such a thing (NFS client for Windows
NT/2000/XP) ?
Go ahead and try. Good luck !
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
You're talking about downloads. Mjh is talking about preinstallation on computers with Windows. I remember this -- at one point Dell and Compaq would give you a system with Netscape's icon right on it, then suddenly they weren't offering that anymore, and IE came by default. I still have a 100mhz laptop from Compaq with Win95 on it, and it still has the Netscape that came preinstalled with it. Mjh is right. Microsoft blocked such preinstalls, and got in trouble in court for such activity.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
By targetting the GPL, Microsoft has made it clear that they want to be able to take our work without any obligations whatsoever. They want to steal our work. A year ago, this would have been an absurd thing to say, but their new zeal for GPL-bashing makes it a workable slogan. We should be saying to this everyone we can!
As long as you didn't choose to have Netscape preinstalled. And the reality is that the action by MS literally "cut off Netscape air supply". There was no confusion by the circuit court nor the appellate that this action was harmful to consumers. And, I have read all of the rulings issued by both of those courts.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
As if the GPL is "already illegal." Absurd! Geekboy is right.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
I think that microsoft is really doing it to scare people off people who have neither the money nor inclinaton to defend their work in court. If I were writing an Open Source widget that was covered by this, and I found a nasty looking letter in my mailbox from Microsoft, I think i would just unplug the website and pray they leave me alone.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
That may be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that microsoft caused consumers harm by precluding them from having a preinstall of Netscape, when as you say, it was superier to IE.
All I'm trying to do is answer the question: Did MS's actions cause consumers harm. I think the answer is yes. danhaskett disagrees, and thinks that it's impossible to prove harm because now the environment is completely different. And he's right that the environment now is different, but I think that's irrelevant.
I think it's irrelevant because it doesn't matter what the environment is like now. A harmful act was committed. Think of it this way. It's not a acceptable excuse for Bin Laden to say that he should avoid punishment because the product of his actions ended up with the US becoming more united and less concerned about petty bickering. That may very well be a good thing that came about from his harmful act, but that doesn't enable him to avoid the consequences of that act.
IMHO, the same thing should be true with MS.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
I'm not trying to suggest that netscape must be preinstalled. And I'm not suggesting that you be forced to use netscape. I'm suggesting that by removing the choice, that's harmful. Most people (at the time) wanted netscape. Removing that choice as a preinstall option was harmful.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Ahh, yes, I sometimes forget that BSD is licenced differently. Many of the NAS vendors use stripped BSD for their kernel OS as a foundation to build on. I wonder exactly how many licences are actually affected.
Thanks!
This license sounds like it's bogus, fraudulent and illegal.
According to the "agreement", you have the right to read the document without signing this contract. In fact, by making this document publicly available, you DO have the legal right to read it. Microsoft has published it, and Copyright law is very clear about your rights with regards to published works.
You are not required to accept this license. Simply don't sign the form, and go ahead with your free implementation of the protocol.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Microsoft likes the BSD license because it, unlike the GPL, allows them to hijack projects and/or code and create a closed, proprietary product. The BSD license can be subverted. The GPL cannot.
The true value of the GPL is that it keeps companies and people honest. Whenever a company begins abusing its position or customers the GPL ensures that alternative products can be safely created independent of market share or monopoly power. A company like Microsoft might be able to stomp all over other companies and pre-emptively purchase or squash startups that threaten its position. It can't do that to a loose collection of hackers (!crackers) and hobbyists that are sick of taking its crap. Microsoft hates the GPL because it is a direct and serious threat to Microsoft and only Microsoft. It is not because of any supposed threat it poses to the software industry as a whole. Where the software industry is concerned, the only thing Microsoft cares about is controlling and dominating it. To hear the evil empire crying foul play is about like the KKK accusing someone of racism.
As far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft hates something then it must be a good thing. The more they scream and the louder the volume, the more wonderful the subject of their complaint must be. If the devils says he doesn't like something, you can bet your sweet ass it must be touched by the divine.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
payable when you meed the programmer next time.
Not in patent law. Microsoft has patented methods used to authenticate users in their networked file system. Microsoft can deny ANYONE the right to use this authentication mechanism using any terms they like.
Not quite they can only deny this where the patent has standing. Which would appear to be the US, they may be able to apply this against any US citizen too.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
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.
The terms of patent law apply to them, surely. However the terms of this particular license does not apply to them unless they agree to it.
Well, sort of. The license actually states that any use of the patented methods must adhere to terms of the license. So Microsoft's stance would be that it is illegal to use their patents except in the case that the terms of this license are agreed to.
The patents actually cover file transfer under the SAMBA protocol.
Microsoft would, of course, have to send a "desist or we'll sue" letter to SAMBA or NAS makers to get the ball rolling, something they are reluctant to do.
I wonder exactly how many licences are actually affected.
Just two. GPL and LGPL. The way Microsoft worded that clause was to forbid any license that placed certain restrictions on software distributed with the implementation. Since no OSI or FSF license restricts non-derivative software distributed in aggregate, only those two specific licenses mentioned (GPL/LGPL) are forbidden.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
FOr whatever reason all those companies you state don't spend as much on political candidates as MS does. A visit to opensecrets is in order for you. You can find out exactly who MS bought and for how much. Also look up some MS executives and stockholders while you are there.
War is necrophilia.
The funniest part is the reciprocal patent license which you must agree without seeing the specs!
Actually the funniest bit is that if it is remotely enforcable all anyone would have to do is send Microsoft a letter saying "By reading this letter you hard irrevokably placed all your copyright material in the public domain and issued a licence to use all your patents in any way anyone sees fit".
From Advogato:
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
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft is just trying to ensure that should
anyone write an implementation that's better than
theirs, they can grab it and include it in their
own products.
(I'm kidding, but Microsoft's behavior is often
stranger than fiction, so who knows.)
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GPL is an exercise in control-freakery
...Whereas Microsoft has always just hung loose and let the world make decisions for it.
Dude, the GPL is far less an excersize in "control-freakery" than "We've locked the source code 30 miles below redmond in a nuke bunker using an encrypted 1500 disk RAID mirroring array. Do not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this product. Do not give copies to your freinds. Do not sell this product, even if you paid for it. You don't own this product, only MS does. If you don't honor our requests, we reserve the right to take the privelege of using this product."
I think the GPL is a result of RMSs goals. He wanted to liberate code. If some company took the code and sold it without returning the improvements to the code to the original, the ball is very much in the companies court, rather than the original creators'. Whether or not his views are good or bad is irrelevant -- the license was created for one purpose, and it has served that purpose well. Linux would have quickly become a closed source OS if not for the GPL (do you really think RedHat et. al. would continue releasing the code if it wasn't a contractual requirement?)
It's been a long time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Judges can (and do) set aside NDAs.
The reasons are:
1) NDA contrary to public interest. One of the fundamental principals of contract law is that no contract requiring a person to break the law is enforceable. Cooperation with authorities in investigating a crime is a grey area, but few judges will be quick to enforce an NDA that interferes with legitimate law enforcement actions.
2) NDA too broad. An NDA should cover specific things that that would cause harm to the other party, but it can't be a blanket ban on all speech. If an NDA tries to cover too much, e.g., if you can't even discuss why Sen. Disney's bill is a bad idea, then it's likely to be unenforceable since you can no more surrender your right to free speech (subject to *modest* restrictions) than you can agree to sell yourself and your children into slavery or you can agree to be murdered.
3) NDAs can't cover common knowledge.
I think there may be other limitations as well, but the point is clear. A NDA, like all other contracts, only means what a court decides it means.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Yes it is like a game of chess. With all the short term feints hiding a long term strategy. In this case the long term goal
beiung controll of a critical percentage of the servers on the Internet and corporate LANs. This seems to be far harder for
them to do than they had originally thought. I believe the primary contributer to this delay is the improper balance they
palced in features vs. security for thier products. This is not surprising since they have been fairly succesfull with a featrue
first strategy.
Going forward, they will obviously need to revese this policy and neutralize the GPL at the same time.
Doing one is hard enough. Doing both will be herculean. To do both they need their entire SW development teams to
completly change directions AND convince the general public that the GPL and the LGPL is bad.
I am curious to see what the next move will be.
As has been said before, this is not a battle. It's a chess game; MS has no use for GPL, BSD or any other licence that has the potential to weaken thier position or strengthen thier competitors.
MS wants us to sacrifice our GPL castle and move our king into a corner. MS's ability to dominate the chess board will be so much easier with the GPL gone.
Switching or sticking with a licence out of ideology would be as effective as using the bishop all the time because you like diagonal movement.
Instead, we should continue to be aggressive just not foolishly so.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I have not heard anything about Patents. I think that Advogato post is exaggerated that bit a little. The documentation on CIFS that has this Royalty Free License associated with it is just a dumb Windows Help File:
= 37530
.chm file wound up in the out-bin. Don't read into this too much folks. There is no way MS could use this as an angle on revoking previously released information about these protocols.
www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID
It's derived from the same old documention that was released as an IETF draft several years ago. The SNIA took over that doc and reformatted and added a little bit to it. It is freely available here:
CIFS Protocol Document Version 0.9
I think MS is just going to release whatever they have on this sort of stuff under this "Royalty Free" license to appease the DOJ and this silly
If they release something that we actually need like the IDL to their DCE/RCP calls under this "Royalty Free" license, is that bad or good? I think it's good. It's certainly better than nothing at all. I think new products with great interoperabilty with Windows would emerge. Viable companies would be formed around this stuff. There's no reason why a company couldn't release binaries for free. And this information will eventually trikle down into the Open Source community anyway. It's unavoidable regardless of any fandangled licenses.
Well, you can charge as much as you like for GPL'd software too, see this. Consultants charge an arm and a leg for freely available information, what's new? The GPL simply makes sure that the end user can use their software as they please, modify their software as they please and redistribute their software as well as their changes (better stated here.
MicroShit threw that language in to confuse people about the GPL. Too bad for them that simple and honest licenses are so easy to read and interpret. All of their nonsense comes to an end when people simply look at the source. Ah, so simple it's been the same since 1991 or so. Can you think of any MicroShit license that has remained so stable? You could fill a phone book with all the small print M$ has put out in the last ten years. Confusion is nothing new to them.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
And I'm not arguing against comingling. Preinstalled software, is very clearly, a consumer demand. What I'm arguing is that one company, in a monopoly position precluding the consumer's choice of what software is preinstalled directly harms the consumer.
It may very well be difficult to show damages for the purpose of remedy. But that doesn't mean that the harm to the consumer wasn't done. It seems to me what you're arguing is akin to Bin Laden arguing that he shouldn't suffer any sort of punishment for his attacks on WTC because the short term result of the attack was a more unified america with less political bickering about small stuff. Making such an argument ignores the fact that 2000+ lives were permanantly lost.
IMHO, it's the same with Microsoft. Being able to show that people like not having to pay for a browser is one positive effect of Microsoft's monopoly power. But we are ignoring the fact that we've got a long term illegal monopoly problem on our hands. Which, by definition, harms the entire economy (including consumers) through the permanant loss of competition. The only one who benefits from MS's actions is MS. Everyone else is harmed directly and indirectly by the impact on the economy. Is that harm hard to measure? Yes. Is it non-existant? No.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Because consumers wanted netscape, not just a browser. They wanted netscape. They asked for it. They asked Dell and Compaq to preinstall it. And when Dell and Compaq (and others) tried to set up a system that met their customers demand, Microsoft threatened to end their licenses for win95, and IIRC, win98. Back then, you'll recall, netscape enjoyed 90%+ market share. Every OEM out there wanted to preinstall it to meet the demands of their customers, but backed down due to threats from MS.
Are the court documents the only things that you've read? How can you not know how MS's decisions directly harmed consumers?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
No way. I release using the GPL, do you? I wouldn't go along with that. It's an invitation to get jerked around.
Step 1: Person A reads docs, creates bsd-licensed patch to samba (or bsd-licensed example code, etc).
Step 2: Person B takes Person A's bsd-licensed code and merges it into samba etc. This is legal under the bsd license.
Step 3: Profit!
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
When MS says that a restriction applies to "Foo, and all other Bars", when Foos aren't Bars in the first place, does that restriction still legally hold up in court?
What would happen if a license said, "This applies to people born after 1980, and other octogenarians", when there exist no octogenarians born after 1980? Does it apply to all people born after 1980 because they are explicitly mentioned?
I guess what I'm asking is, legally, what is the boolean representation for the phrase "Foo, and other Bars":
- The set of all things satisfying the
condition: (Foo) or (Bar)
- The set of all things satisfying the
condition: (Foo and Bar)
Seeing as how Bar is a null set in this case, it's an important queestion to ask, because the set reduces to either just FOO, or the null set, depending on whether it's ORed or ANDed.Well, maybe it's not so important after all, since this would hinge upon getting a lawyer to understand not only the licenses involved, but also the technical jargon of what is "linking" a program and so on. Since I have my doubts about that ever happening, the MS license will probably stand, and idiots will continue to spread the myth that the GPL is viral, and the implicit lie contained in this MS license will help that along a little bit.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Someone ought to implement this supposed new version of CIFS immediately, in plain defiance of their stupidity. Let M$ go ahead try to sue them--this would be especially effective if the program was written by some teenage kid from a small town. Then make an enormous public fuss about it and watch M$ be annihilated by half its employees leaving and its stock price falling to peanuts.
The DOJ was REQUIRED to prove substantial harm to consumers because of the co-mingling, which it now turns out is very popular (look at KDE or Nautilius for proof of how popular).
***
It wasn't the co-mingling as much as the restrictions on the OEMs.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Yes, I am talking about downloads. And this is important. Consumers could still choose.
***
No. If they "chose" netscape they were on their own. Users and companies rely on OEMs for support. If something doesn't work, it is the OEMs responsibility to fix it. That is, unless they downloaded it. Consumers were unable to get the full package anymore with netscape included.
Is this quantifiable? Maybe there is a way to quantify it, but I can't think of it at the moment.
Engineering and the Ultimate
No, Navigator was free only for educational use and some forms of personal use. Netscape made most of their money selling the browser to OEM's for preloads and companies. Navigator was not free for everyone until after Microsoft "integrated" IE into Windows.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
After their Linux desaster last year - can anyone point to someone who actually believed any of their FUD in the anti-linux campaign? - and given that they are losing big money on their xbox and that winxp is not the huge hit they wanted it to be I think this must be an act of desperation. There are enough loopholes that this can be circumvented legally and if MS carries on this manner I can imagine companies simply not upgrading their MS server software.
What company (those big enough and those intelligent enough to read the licence) can actually have any incentive to use MS' server software?
1.What *real* business advantages does any new MS server offer that is not adequately covered by existing products?
2.What advantages do companies have in spending money on the product *and* a technician/admin compared to a Linux/BSD server product that requires *only* a technician/admin (software costs being negligable on the latter)?
3.At what point do MS licences become so unwieldly (WPA/IPRimparing etc) that it becomes impractical for it's customers to use MS software?
4.At what point does the prevalence of an OSS solution in the industry mean that an initiatve of MS is doomed before it even begins due to lack of traction with the industry?
If I were doing any aquisition I would ask myself some questions like these.
The GPL prevents embrace and extend behaviors. The BSD license does not.
Isn't Microsoft digging itself into a new anti-trust hole?
;)
Granted, the majority of the competition is "in business" for remunerations other than money. But they do present legitimate competition - they are just bad business men
Microsoft is again punishing organizations who's business practices they dislike.
Take OpenOffice, for instance. It works with Microsoft file formats, as Microsoft has a monopoly over the desktop market. They could not survive as viable competition if Microsoft declared these formats off limits.
It would make an interesting court case. But I don't think Microsoft is looking to take anyone to court; I see this as a small theatre in their attack on open source software - yet another smear on GPL software's reputation as being a reliable alternative.
GPL is an enabling license. It allows people to do things with code that they usually are not allowed to do. It's not as enabling as the BSD license, but very deliberately so.
What is this possible danger you speak of?
A world with a lot of GPL software does not preclude commercial (non-GPL) development. It does make it harder for companies to sell crap. To me this seems like a good thing for all parties, save for those in the business of marketting sows' ears as silk purses. And good riddance to them.
The benefits are a much better educated programming community. Even if one is developing commercial software, one can learn from the wide availability of source in a GPL-rich world. Sure you can't copy that source, but it's not like you can now, anyway.
Books on these protocols are published all the time by third parties which do not require a license agreement to read their documentation. Despite the fact that these are not from the "horse's mouth" some third party reference docs have been know to be just as complete as those coming out of Redmond. Use those to implement the protocols, without fear.
Also, I very much doubt that MS could enforce such a license since they would need to PROVE that you learned the information from their documentation.
GJC
P.S. I am not a lawyer, these are just my opinions.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Abide by MS's rules.
Don't release CIFS code under the GPL. Instead, write a new license that is extremely similar.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
You haven't read the law, have you. In fact, you don't even know what UCITA stands for, do you? I can just see you right now, scrambling to google to look it up so you can make another nagging little comment.
Pop quiz, hotshot: How many software companies have opened offices in Virginia and Maryland in the last two years?
I don't know whether you're in denial or you're just terminally stupid. I suppose I'd guess both.
We're on the road to Tycho.
LOL
Very good idea - hope someone mods you up.
Brett,
Back when you and I used to hang out on the M$ forums at SJMercury.com, I used to really admire you and think you were really cool. Good job of undoing that with this post.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
A Montreal on-air personality who has a history of doing such things, managed to arrange a phone call with Bill Gates on April 1. He arranged it under the name "Jean Cretien" -- The Canadian prime minister.
After arranging a later meeting with Bill Gates, he made as if he was putting the appointment in his computer....
(paraquote, because I don't have the actual quote)
The on-air jokster fessed up to the April Fools joke later on in the conversation.Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was caught in this debate many years ago, and someone produced a digitized sound-bite from Linus with the "lie-nucks" pronunciation. After much confusion we realized that the sound file he had gotten off the web was someone else reading a statement attributed to Linus. The source if this misleading sound file?
MSNBC of course.
-- MarkusQ
Maybe not enough on an individual level, but multiplied across millions of people, the cumulative harm is significant.
You can take a dollar from a bunch of individuals and not cause much individual harm, but when you do it in the stock market, through inside informaiton, or the publication of information to uphold a stocks price while you dump yours, it's a violation that the SEC comes after you for. Each individual instance of harm is not much, but the cumulative total harm is enormous, illegal, and prosecuted.
MS should not be held to a different standard. It doesn't matter if the amount of harm that they did to each individual is minor, on an individual basis. The cumulative effect of that harm was to extend their monopoly. And for that harm, which you concede, compensation must be made. Some sort of remedy must be imposed. Something that prevents an illegal monopolist from taking advantage of the penchant that they have of harming their customers.
The current DOJ settlement does not do it.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Who will fund development of GPL software for the good of all when it's not important enough for anyone to fund on their own? The danger is that we'll be less likely to see any "spectacular" software because most developers will stop at "good enough" instead, assuming they get that far.There's certainly a lot of crappy proprietary software out there. There's also some spectacular proprietary software, such as Google's search engine. There's plenty of crappy free software out there along with some spectacular free software. Neither side has consistent quality. Anyhow, I agree -- good riddance to those companies selling crap software. (SoftRAM is an excellent example -- their product was flashy but completely worthless.)
What about companies who want to sell good software? How will they make enough money to defray the cost of software development if free software is the norm, and anyone can get their software free from a buddy instead of paying for it? When no customers are willing to pay for proprietary software because they've bought into Stallman's rhetoric? Those companies would be doomed, no matter how good their software may be.
Stallman would be pleased, of course. He wants to obliterate proprietary software from the world, and the GPL is his chosen weapon to perform this genocide. Stallman's goal is an all-out war, with the GPL and "free software" on one side and all proprietary software on the other side. There can be no doubt on this point; he wrote articles about Why Software Should Not Have Owners and Why Software Should Be Free which make his hatred for proprietary software quite clear. Choice quotes include:
- there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do - A rather strong statement considering that the usual argument in defense of the viral nature of the GPL is that one can pretend it doesn't exist and do without it. One could equally pretend proprietary software doesn't exist, yet there is "no limit" to the harm it can do?
- since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large - Maybe, or maybe it's expensive because custom programming is difficult work that takes a lot of skilled labor, of which there is a limited supply? (Did Stallman make a living charging nominal fees for custom work? Or did he charge $300/hour?)
- society shouldn't have owners for programs - This is a pretty unambiguous statement of his viewpoint and goals.
- programmers often work for the Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere - So programmers should have to sacrifice their income for the good of all? Stallman says $35,000/year should be sufficient incentive to program for a living; did he ever do custom programming work for $17.50/hour?
- [a moral obligation to support developers] does not apply to proprietary software developers, since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward - Now he's not just saying to prefer free software over proprietary software, but that those proprietary software developers deserved to be punished for their "obstructionism"? That sure sounds like "fighting words" to me...
- the users will learn to support developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public radio and television stations - If the public is so willing to support public radio and television "without coercion", why must they inevitably resort to pledge drives?
- withholding information that could help everyone advance is a form of combat - The GPL does exactly such withholding from proprietary developers, hence the GPL is a form of combat. Again, there's no doubt that proprietary software is an enemy here, not just something to coexist with.
- if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists - This is a bizarre accusation, and hypocritical, considering the diatribe elsewhere about "name calling".
- most of what I have to say is addressed only to those who share the premises I use - Nobody is allowed to question the premises used; let's just preach to the choir.
- the owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner - True, but most people won't pay if they don't have to. When free software is the norm and the vast majority won't pay, how will development be funded?
- society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens - Great sentiment, and a wonderful ideal. Unfortunately, nobody has found a way to implement such a utopia. It seems that individuals are too self-interested to do what's best for everyone, most of the time.
- if your friend asks to make a copy [of proprietary software], it would be wrong to refuse - So now it's immoral not to break the law? If the law is wrong (not a given), then civil disobediance should be a choice, not a moral obligation...
Stallman treats this as a war, make no mistake about it.This goal could be achieved by convincing proprietary developers to go back to the old ways and start distributing source code with their products again. They could also allow their customers to modify that code to repair bugs or add features according to that customer's needs. They could even be allowed to redistribute such changes to other customers. These are good things, and there's no reason not to encourage them; they pose no inherent danger to the industry.The problem is not with the users getting source; the problem is with demanding that all users be allowed to give the software away at will to those who've never paid anything for it. This destroys the market for that software. Nobody has proven that altruism works on a large scale. No rational person (or company) would shoulder the burden of funding development for everyone when that burden will exceed the value to that person or company, no matter how valuable it might be to the world.
Stallman claims his goal is the empowerment of the users. This is partly true, but the fatal flaw in his philosophy is demanding the right to give away the work of others for free. That's just a form of neo-communism, and no matter how lofty the ideals, there's no proof that it can work as a viable economic model. Many nation-states have tried, none have been very successful. Why should we believe that the GPL's form of communism will be more successful than those nation-states?
If Stallman truly wants to empower the users, he should focus on the value of sharing source and allowing modifications, not his neo-communist ideas about how we're morally obligated to share anything we have with our friends on request...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
It only displays me kind of a menu with Lynx...
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
So MS bought twice as many politicians as TW. Of course that's not counting the money spent by Bill Gates and his mafia. I think if you do further research you will find the actual number is over 6 million.
War is necrophilia.
What "most people" wanted is not a question of guessing. This is a fact that can be measured by the market share of Netscape relative to IE at the time.
Also, MS did try to deal with the supplier in most demand (Netscape) but there dealing wasn't in an attempt to distribute Netscape, rather to try to get Netscape to agree to voluntarily concede the windows market to Microsoft. Netscape declined this deal (for obvious reasons). The fact that MS didn't enter into a deal to distribute Netscape is not evidence that MS didn't think people wanted Netscape. It's evidence that MS thought that people's desire for Netscape could remove MS's power... especially since Netscape ran on other OS's than Windows.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
MS has their own president and AG. That trumps everybody.
War is necrophilia.
I'm going to try and summarize your argument in order to attack it, but I may be misrepresenting it; if so, please accept my apologies in advance!
The key point seems to be if there is a large amount of no-charge freely-copyable software available which is adequate for most tasks, then it will be impossible for companies to economically produce very good commercial software. The reason for this being that too many people will be happy to make do with the free alternatives, and so the cost of production of the really good software could never be recouped.
This may indeed be a force towards the production of less commercial software. On the other hand, the availability of a wide code-base that is freely available for use in free software means that the cost of development of new free software is also made that much lower. If the market ever reaches such a state (and I admit to being highly sceptical that it will while the current IP regime remains in place), then in those areas where free and commercial software are competing, the same force that makes the commercial software less viable makes it more likely that the free software can be cheaply and easily shaped to fit the task.
There are some areas where such competition seems less likely, such as those where there is a large amount of non-code labour required. The primary example here is that of modern computer games. Here novelty and pretty graphics are desired to the degree that people will happily buy new games regularly. This situation would not change for the worse in a free-software dominated world.
If a company can produce really good software that is different in kind to existing free software, then that too is certainly saleable. If there is nothing in the same class as the Google search engine, then there's nothing preventing Google from marketting its engine to companies in the same way as it is now. If there were something in the same league then it probably would be cheaper for those potential buyers to pay for the devlopment and refinement of the existing free software, especially as such development, drawing upon a very wide base of publicly available code in the free-software dominated world, would be much quicker.
I really can't see large scale free software availability destroying any software industry that currently exists and produces software that would not be available in a free software form.
The other benefit of such a world is of course that there is a lot of software that people can use, as software, for no cost. If it's good software (and for free software to dominate, it'll have to be at least in the same league as current commercial software) then aren't the users of that software getting more financially efficient use of their computers and their time?
I think you may also be misrepresenting Stallman's position some, but that is somewhat tangential to the original direction of the argument.
Clearly, there are more browsers now than before. So showing harm would be entirely speculative at this point.
****
# of browsers is not the point. Choice is. If there were infinite # of browsers available, but the regular consumer could only find 1, the fact that the others exist is quite moot. But again, it's hard to put a price tag on it.
AOL coming out with Netscape won't hurt the case, either, because if it requires shipping a competitor's product for free to the entire country to grab back a fraction of what was lost, then it kind of proves the monopoly position rather than hinder it.
Engineering and the Ultimate