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
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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
Kodak saying no one else can make a set of chemicals that develop their film if they plan to give them away for free?
This is like Kodak giving someone the recipe for the official Kodak set of chemicals, then telling them that they can't give that recipe to other people.
Microsoft is well within their rights under Copyright law here. Microsoft is giving people the opportunity to implement the CIFS specs, but not to redistribute them in a form which makes sublicensing compulsory.
The hole in the situation is that someone could implement the spec and release it to the Public Domain, since MS isn't forbidding ALL redistribution, only direct redistribution with compulsory sublicensing. That code could then be folded into a GPL'd product by a third party since they received the original code as PD, not under Microsoft's agreement.
NO CARRIER
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.
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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.
"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."
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
Usually you have to accept the license, because nothing else gives you right to use or copy the software.
Umm, nothing except USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 117
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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!"
The really fun part is that, read carefully, it doesn't say that the GPL/LGPL is a "license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge."
In fact the GPL/LGPL are implied to be such licenses but MS is just going after them by name, not by characteristic. Create a license, called ALLGPL (Anti-Lawyering LGPL) that is cut and paste LGPL and it is not the LGPL, merely compatible with it. But MS then has the burden of proving that it is an IPR licenses which, of course, it is not.
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.
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.
So, it'd sort of be a LAME for CIFS. Which seems particularly apt, when you think about it.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
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.
Interestingly enough, the GPL itself doesn't require any of those things. The key phrase is "requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license". The GPL specifically excludes aggregation. That is, I'm free to distribute my non-GPL'd software on the same disk as GPL'd software.
Of course, the MS license specifically excludes by name the GNU GPL and LGPL, but it seems to me you could write your own version of the GPL, call it "Fred's GPL" (or whatever), and license under that. (Note that making a derivative work of GPL'd software is an entirely different thing than merely distributing software with (along side of) GPL'd software.)
(And if necessary, I'm sure you could get FSF's permission to make a "derivative work" of the GNU GPL in order to create Fred's GPL for this purpose.)
-- Alastair
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.
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
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.
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.
Yeah, but this isn't aimed at everyone. This license is aimed squarely at the Samba team. MS knows exactly where they are and likely have lawyers waiting in the wings for Samba to make the wrong move with this. The Samba team has three choices right now:
1. Continue to reverse-engineer CIFS and releasing Samba under the GPL. In which case they violate the DMCA, which states that reverse-engineering is legal as long as the interoperability info is not readily available.
2. Read the Doc and implement the spec, but release under GPL anyway. This would save the Samba Team for the DMCA problems of #1, but would expose them to a lawsuit based on the violation of a licensing agreement (however, ridiculous its terms are).
3. Switch the Samba license to a BSD-style license. This may not be possible, because many people have contributed code to the project over the years. In other words, the Samba team may not have the legal right to change the license.
So, from what I've been able to figure, the Samba Team is ROYALLY screwed right now. No matter which way they turn, they will be doing something wrong.
Microsoft is kicking back having a really big laugh right now.
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/
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
That is, they like it as long as they can be parasites.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Then, when's the last time MS has gave BACK source (patches on software, kernel fixes, and the like), in which was NOT related to promotion of yet another monopoly (recent rotor givings was to promote .NOT only). And if you didn't notice, MS is on the Apache board. They just sit there and absorb all good ideas.
that is right on.
apart from the entirely different argument about whether *BSD or linux is better, the biggest threat to Microsoft on servers is linux. If something is a big enough competitor, MS does not care what license it uses. MS only cares that every machine running a competing OS is not running Windows (or exclusively Windows).
In Microsoft's leaked emails they don't talk about letting BSD slide because of the license. they don't mention the GPL as the reason that linux must be outsold. They only mention that they want to work especially hard to win those accounts.
people mentioning Apple's OSX as a threat miss the point. though Darwin is open source, OSX is not. If it were, i'd be running it on my PC architecture. Microsoft lets Apple slide because they have been confined to a niche market (though personally, i wouldn't be surprised if OSX reverses that trend.) as it stands, OSX only runs on proprietary Apple hardware.
The point is that MS focuses its efforts on its largest immediate threats. Not threats to licensing or IP, but threats to market share. As soon as BSD gets a big enough install base, MS will go after BSD.
Also there's the idea that GPL does not allow the MS tried and true formula, embrace, extend, extinguish. MS likes BSD because it can do anything it likes with the code. They'll toss code out there if it allows people to develop for their own proprietary platform. It is not contributed because MS thinks that it would like to help make BSD a better OS.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft's final goal is something other than total market domination in every area related to technology is fooling themselves.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
Don't be silly.
:-).
This spec is a *subset* of what Samba already implements.
The SNIA CIFS spec (which we helped to create) already
documents far more than is in this spec. (Not that I've
read it this spec, obviously, but I've spoken to people
who have read both).
This spec. is an irrelevence. Try implementing it to
the letter and see how many Microsoft clients actually
*work* against you. (Hint - none
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Brrzzztt! Wrong! I am not obliged to sign and mail back this license before I look at the spec. I am under no NDA. It's preposterous for Microsoft to say "now that you know what our specs are, you must agree to this license before you can implement them."
If Kodak told me *after* I had received their recipe what I can do with their recipe, I would tell them to go fly a kite. By making their recipe public they just destroyed any trade secrets they might have. I have no obligation to Kodak after they give me the recipe if I didn't agree to any before hand.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned