Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft And The GPL/LGPL
AnimeFreak writes "In this CNET news article, it talks about how Microsoft's new license that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products does not allow software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement (such as Linux, SAMBA, and Mozilla)."
Thou shall not be competent?
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Like just a few days ago?
-- Alastair
this?
6 25 2&mode=thread
;)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/05/145
I thought we had hashed this one out already
What a bunch of whiners. Maybe Microsoft should try competing instead of just blocking their competators.
I guess my question is, will enough people know enough about this to decide if this is a good or bad thing..
What if the source for Windows was released under this license...? Would you bother with it?
It's their code, they can licence it however they damn well please.
That's what "freedom" is all about. You get to choose how your code can be used. MS has decided, now it's up to us to honor that decision.
Otherwise, you have no right to expect anyone to respect licences like the GPL.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
You think in the headline they could have mentioned that the article was written by Bruce Perens. This is not journalism; it's an op-ed piece. Don't be so misleading with titles, boys.
PENIS!
In this mainstream news site, they talk about what we talked about last week.
Is this really news?
don't forget the Macarena.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
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.
I like petting kittens.
Okay, I'm anti-Microsoft, pro-OSS but could you give it a rest for a day? Tomorrow will it be a "MS vs GPL" or a "MS vs Linux" story? At least with the CBDTA (or whatever-ithe-SSSCA-is-called) there's real need for active involvement; with this - what's there to do that us pro-GPL people aren't already doing?
- adam
the day of the obvious today?
sic transit gloria mundi
Aren't we all suppose to rate that page to the lowest score?
I thought I did remember some poster saying so.
:)
So in short they are denying you to use information. And of course that would just mean, that every Open Source development in projects that are related to what MS is "disclosing" have to stop immediately, otherwise MS could claim that the developers violated their license. And the question is if Open Source then has to prove if they are innocent or if MS has to prove that they are guilty. Anyway, legal affairs cost much more than many Open Source developers can afford.
So this is just another form of censorship. But its much worse. Microsoft is "publishing" something and in the same moment trying to disallow you to use that knowledge which is published. A thing that is really serious because the human brain doesn't have an infrastructure that tags information as "not usuable for Open Source" and so on. Or can you imagine a school that learns you how to add 1+1 and then tells you: You are not allowed to use this knowledge. And keep that in mind!
As a developer I don't want to bother if the knowledge that is stored in my brain is free or not! For me it is free and nobody, especially not Microsoft has the right to control what I'm doing with my brain!
So for an Open Source developer this sort of license agreement simply says: Read the information and forget it completely. And so there is no need to waste time with reading at all.
So, basically this license can be used by Microsoft to protect even things that are not able to get a patent for.
If I go on thinking about this a bit more, then I think that Orwell was a very big optimist when he wrote "1984".
Microsoft and other commercial software companies write software, license and sell it for a profit, which pisses off the open source community. Story at 11.
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.
I like petting kittens.
So, remember the Halloween documents? Which claimed Linux was/is a long-run threat. Here is yet another paranoid step.
IIRC, Bill Gates said many many years ago (long before Linux): "Only the paranoids survive."
Surely this action by MS can be considered anti-competitive and must be attacked as such. As I'm not American I have no idea what laws there may be, but in EU there are measures.
i didn't see anything about bsd/mit/apache style licenses ... are these affected? (i'm busy getting raped by the irs, otherwise i'd read the legalese)
... could this have anything to do with it?
... *BSD is *not* dying
ms is already somewhat down with the bsd license (strings ftp.exe | grep Cali)
--m
ps - before the trolls get to it
REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, plaintiffs United States of America ("United States") and the States of New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin and defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment;
AND WHEREAS, this Final Judgment does not constitute any admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;
AND WHEREAS, Microsoft agrees to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;
NOW THEREFORE, upon remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and upon the consent of the aforementioned parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
I. Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the person of Microsoft.
II. Applicability
This Final Judgment applies to Microsoft and to each of its officers, directors, agents, employees, subsidiaries, successors and assigns; and to all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who shall have received actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.
III. Prohibited Conduct
A. Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering Microsoft's commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not limited to new versions of existing forms of non-monetary Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to Microsoft that the OEM is or is contemplating:
1. developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any product or service that distributes or promotes any Non-Microsoft Middleware;
2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or
3. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any license with any OEM or any intellectual property right that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall not terminate a Covered OEM's license for a Windows Operating System Product without having first given the Covered OEM written notice of the reasons for the proposed termination and not less than thirty days' opportunity to cure. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Microsoft shall have no obligation to provide such a termination notice and opportunity to cure to any Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices during the term of its Windows Operating System Product license.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit Microsoft from providing Consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where that Consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service.
B. Microsoft's provision of Windows Operating System Products to Covered OEMs shall be pursuant to uniform license agreements with uniform terms and conditions. Without limiting the foregoing, Microsoft shall charge each Covered OEM the applicable royalty for Windows Operating System Products as set forth on a schedule, to be established by Microsoft and published on a web site accessible to the Plaintiffs and all Covered OEMs, that provides for uniform royalties for Windows Operating System Products, except that:
1. the schedule may specify different royalties for different language versions;
2. the schedule may specify reasonable volume discounts based upon the actual volume of licenses of any Windows Operating System Product or any group of such products; and
3. the schedule may include market development allowances, programs, or other discounts in connection with Windows Operating System Products, provided that:
1. such discounts are offered and available uniformly to all Covered OEMs, except that Microsoft may establish one uniform discount schedule for the ten largest Covered OEMs and a second uniform discount schedule for the eleventh through twentieth largest Covered OEMs, where the size of the OEM is measured by volume of licenses;
2. such discounts are based on objective, verifiable criteria that shall be applied and enforced on a uniform basis for all Covered OEMs; and
3. such discounts or their award shall not be based on or impose any criterion or requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with any portion of this Final Judgment.
C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives:
1. Installing, and displaying icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for, any Non-Microsoft Middleware or any product or service (including but not limited to IAP products or services) that distributes, uses, promotes, or supports any Non-Microsoft Middleware, on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict an OEM from displaying icons, shortcuts and menu entries for any product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products.
2. Distributing or promoting Non-Microsoft Middleware by installing and displaying on the desktop shortcuts of any size or shape so long as such shortcuts do not impair the functionality of the user interface.
3. Launching automatically, at the conclusion of the initial boot sequence or subsequent boot sequences, or upon connections to or disconnections from the Internet, any Non-Microsoft Middleware if a Microsoft Middleware Product that provides similar functionality would otherwise be launched automatically at that time, provided that any such Non-Microsoft Middleware displays on the desktop no user interface or a user interface of similar size and shape to the user interface displayed by the corresponding Microsoft Middleware Product.
4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product.
5. Presenting in the initial boot sequence its own IAP offer provided that the OEM complies with reasonable technical specifications established by Microsoft, including a requirement that the end user be returned to the initial boot sequence upon the conclusion of any such offer.
6. Exercising any of the options provided in Section III.H of this Final Judgment.
D. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN") or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product. In the case of a new major version of Microsoft Middleware, the disclosures required by this Section III.D shall occur no later than the last major beta test release of that Microsoft Middleware. In the case of a new version of a Windows Operating System Product, the obligations imposed by this Section III.D shall occur in a Timely Manner.
E. Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product.
F.
1. Microsoft shall not retaliate against any ISV or IHV because of that ISV's or IHV's:
1. developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
2. exercising any of the options or alternatives provided for under this Final Judgment.
2. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement relating to a Windows Operating System Product that conditions the grant of any Consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, using, distributing, or promoting any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software or any software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements that place limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion of any such software if those limitations are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction with, Microsoft.
3. Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from enforcing any provision of any agreement with any ISV or IHV, or any intellectual property right, that is not inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
G. Microsoft shall not enter into any agreement with:
1. any IAP, ICP, ISV, IHV or OEM that grants Consideration on the condition that such entity distributes, promotes, uses, or supports, exclusively or in a fixed percentage, any Microsoft Platform Software, except that Microsoft may enter into agreements in which such an entity agrees to distribute, promote, use or support Microsoft Platform Software in a fixed percentage whenever Microsoft in good faith obtains a representation that it is commercially practicable for the entity to provide equal or greater distribution, promotion, use or support for software that competes with Microsoft Platform Software, or
2. any IAP or ICP that grants placement on the desktop or elsewhere in any Windows Operating System Product to that IAP or ICP on the condition that the IAP or ICP refrain from distributing, promoting or using any software that competes with Microsoft Middleware.
Nothing in this section shall prohibit Microsoft from entering into (a) any bona fide joint venture or (b) any joint development or joint services arrangement with any ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM for a new product, technology or service, or any material value-add to an existing product, technology or service, in which both Microsoft and the ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM contribute significant developer or other resources, that prohibits such entity from competing with the object of the joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of time.
This Section does not apply to any agreements in which Microsoft licenses intellectual property in from a third party.
H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall:
1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by (a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may restrict the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for any product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft and Microsoft products; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic invocations pursuant to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that are used to launch Non-Microsoft Middleware Products or Microsoft Middleware Products. The mechanism shall offer the end user a separate and unbiased choice with respect to enabling or removing access (as described in this subsection III.H.1) and altering default invocations (as described in the following subsection III.H.2) with regard to each such Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and may offer the end-user a separate and unbiased choice of enabling or removing access and altering default configurations as to all Microsoft Middleware Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft Middleware Products as a group.
2. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily available from the desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation kits), and Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a mechanism which may, at Microsoft's option, require confirmation from the end user) to designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in place of that Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa) in any case where the Windows Operating System Product would otherwise launch the Microsoft Middleware Product in a separate Top-Level Window and display either (i) all of the user interface elements or (ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware Product.
3. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a) automatically alter an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to Section III.C of this Final Judgment without first seeking confirmation from the user and (b) seek such confirmation from the end user for an automatic (as opposed to user-initiated) alteration of the OEM's configuration until 14 days after the initial boot up of a new Personal Computer. Microsoft shall not alter the manner in which a Windows Operating System Product automatically alters an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or menu entries other than in a new version of a Windows Operating System Product.
Notwithstanding the foregoing Section III.H.2, the Windows Operating System Product may invoke a Microsoft Middleware Product in any instance in which:
1. that Microsoft Middleware Product would be invoked solely for use in interoperating with a server maintained by Microsoft (outside the context of general Web browsing), or
2. that designated Non-Microsoft Middleware Product fails to implement a reasonable technical requirement (e.g., a requirement to be able to host a particular ActiveX control) that is necessary for valid technical reasons to supply the end user with functionality consistent with a Windows Operating System Product, provided that the technical reasons are described in a reasonably prompt manner to any ISV that requests them.
Microsoft's obligations under this Section III.H as to any new Windows Operating System Product shall be determined based on the Microsoft Middleware Products which exist seven months prior to the last beta test version (i.e., the one immediately preceding the first release candidate) of that Windows Operating System Product.
I. Microsoft shall offer to license to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs any intellectual property rights owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any of the options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this Final Judgment, provided that
1. all terms, including royalties or other payment of monetary consideration, are reasonable and non-discriminatory;
2. the scope of any such license (and the intellectual property rights licensed thereunder) need be no broader than is necessary to ensure that an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP or OEM is able to exercise the options or alternatives expressly provided under this Final Judgment (e.g., an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's and OEM's option to promote Non-Microsoft Middleware shall not confer any rights to any Microsoft intellectual property rights infringed by that Non-Microsoft Middleware);
3. an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's rights may be conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or sublicensing its rights under any license granted under this provision;
4. the terms of any license granted under this section are in all respects consistent with the express terms of this Final Judgment; and
5. an ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, or OEM may be required to grant to Microsoft on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms a license to any intellectual property rights it may have relating to the exercise of their options or alternatives provided by this Final Judgment; the scope of such license shall be no broader than is necessary to insure that Microsoft can provide such options or alternatives.
Beyond the express terms of any license granted by Microsoft pursuant to this section, this Final Judgment does not, directly or by implication, estoppel or otherwise, confer any rights, licenses, covenants or immunities with regard to any Microsoft intellectual property to anyone.
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
IV. Compliance and Enforcement Procedures
A. Enforcement Authority
1. The Plaintiffs shall have exclusive responsibility for enforcing this Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting the sovereign enforcement authority of each of the plaintiff States, the plaintiff States shall form a committee to coordinate their enforcement of this Final Judgment. A plaintiff State shall take no action to enforce this Final Judgment without first consulting with the United States and with the plaintiff States' enforcement committee.
2. To determine and enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, duly authorized representatives of the United States and the plaintiff States, on reasonable notice to Microsoft and subject to any lawful privilege, shall be permitted the following:
1. Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code, books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of Microsoft, which may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
2. Subject to the reasonable convenience of Microsoft and without restraint or interference from it, to interview, informally or on the record, officers, employees, or agents of Microsoft, who may have counsel present, regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
3. Upon written request of the United States or a duly designated representative of a plaintiff State, on reasonable notice given to Microsoft, Microsoft shall submit such written reports under oath as requested regarding any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
Individual plaintiff States will consult with the plaintiff States' enforcement committee to minimize the duplication and burden of the exercise of the foregoing powers, where practicable.
3. The Plaintiffs shall not disclose any information or documents obtained from Microsoft under this Final Judgment except for the purpose of securing compliance with this Final Judgment, in a legal proceeding to which one or more of the Plaintiffs is a party, or as otherwise required by law; provided that the relevant Plaintiff(s) must provide ten days' advance notice to Microsoft before disclosing in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding) to which Microsoft is not a party any information or documents provided by Microsoft pursuant to this Final Judgment which Microsoft has identified in writing as material as to which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
4. The Plaintiffs shall have the authority to seek such orders as are necessary from the Court to enforce this Final Judgment, provided, however, that the Plaintiffs shall afford Microsoft a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged violations of Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H, provided further that any action by Microsoft to cure any such violation shall not be a defense to enforcement with respect to any knowing, willful or systematic violations.
B. Appointment of a Technical Committee
1. Within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties shall create and recommend to the Court for its appointment a three-person Technical Committee ("TC") to assist in enforcement of and compliance with this Final Judgment.
2. The TC members shall be experts in software design and programming. No TC member shall have a conflict of interest that could prevent him or her from performing his or her duties under this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. Without limitation to the foregoing, no TC member (absent the agreement of both parties):
1. shall have been employed in any capacity by Microsoft or any competitor to Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she or he be so employed during his or her term on the TC;
2. shall have been retained as a consulting or testifying expert by any person in this action or in any other action adverse to or on behalf of Microsoft; or
3. shall perform any other work for Microsoft or any competitor of Microsoft for two years after the expiration of the term of his or her service on the TC.
3. Within 7 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the Plaintiffs as a group and Microsoft shall each select one member of the TC, and those two members shall then select the third member. The selection and approval process shall proceed as follows.
1. As soon as practicable after submission of this Final Judgment to the Court, the Plaintiffs as a group and Microsoft shall each identify to the other the individual it proposes to select as its designee to the TC. The Plaintiffs and Microsoft shall not object to each other's selection on any ground other than failure to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection shall be made within ten business days of the receipt of notification of selection.
2. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to Section IV.B.3.a above. Any objections to the eligibility of a selected person that the parties have failed to resolve between themselves shall be decided by the Court based solely on the requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 above.
3. As soon as practical after their appointment by the Court, the two members of the TC selected by the Plaintiffs and Microsoft (the "Standing Committee Members") shall identify to the Plaintiffs and Microsoft the person that they in turn propose to select as the third member of the TC. The Plaintiffs and Microsoft shall not object to this selection on any grounds other than failure to satisfy the requirements of Section IV.B.2 above. Any such objection shall be made within ten business days of the receipt of notification of the selection and shall be served on the other party as well as on the Standing Committee Members.
4. The Plaintiffs shall apply to the Court for appointment of the person selected by the Standing Committee Members. If the Standing Committee Members cannot agree on a third member of the TC, the third member shall be appointed by the Court. Any objection by Microsoft or the Plaintiffs to the eligibility of the person selected by the Standing Committee Members which the parties have failed to resolve among themselves shall also be decided by the Court based on the requirements stated in Section IV.B.2 above.
4. Each TC member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months. At the end of a TC member's initial 30-month term, the party that originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or replace the TC member in the same manner as provided for in Section IV.B.3.a above. In the case of the third member of the TC, that member shall be re-appointed or replaced in the manner provided in Section IV.B.3.c above.
5. If the United States determines that a member of the TC has failed to act diligently and consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a member of the TC resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve in his or her capacity as a member of the TC, the person or persons that originally selected the TC member shall select a replacement member in the same manner as provided for in Section IV.B.3.
6. Promptly after appointment of the TC by the Court, the United States shall enter into a Technical Committee services agreement ("TC Services Agreement") with each TC member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to permit the TC to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. Microsoft shall indemnify each TC member and hold him or her harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities or expenses arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of the TC's duties, except to the extent that such liabilities, losses, damages, claims, or expenses result from misfeasance, gross negligence, willful or wanton acts, or bad faith by the TC member. The TC Services Agreements shall include the following.
1. The TC members shall serve, without bond or other security, at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of reasonable fees and expenses.
2. The TC Services Agreement shall provide that each member of the TC shall comply with the limitations provided for in Section IV.B.2 above.
7. Microsoft shall provide the TC with a permanent office, telephone, and other office support facilities at Microsoft's corporate campus in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft shall also, upon reasonable advance notice from the TC, provide the TC with reasonable access to available office space, telephone, and other office support facilities at any other Microsoft facility identified by the TC.
8. The TC shall have the following powers and duties:
1. The TC shall have the power and authority to monitor Microsoft's compliance with its obligations under this final judgment.
2. The TC may, on reasonable notice to Microsoft:
1. interview, either informally or on the record, any Microsoft personnel, who may have counsel present; any such interview to be subject to the reasonable convenience of such personnel and without restraint or interference by Microsoft;
2. inspect and copy any document in the possession, custody or control of Microsoft personnel;
3. obtain reasonable access to any systems or equipment to which Microsoft personnel have access;
4. obtain access to, and inspect, any physical facility, building or other premises to which Microsoft personnel have access; and
5. require Microsoft personnel to provide compilations of documents, data and other information, and to submit reports to the TC containing such material, in such form as the TC may reasonably direct.
3. The TC shall have access to Microsoft's source code, subject to the terms of Microsoft's standard source code Confidentiality Agreement, as approved by the Plaintiffs and to be agreed to by the TC members pursuant to Section IV.B.9 below, and by any staff or consultants who may have access to the source code. The TC may study, interrogate and interact with the source code in order to perform its functions and duties, including the handling of complaints and other inquiries from non-parties.
4. The TC shall receive complaints from the Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs and handle them in the manner specified in Section IV.D below.
5. The TC shall report in writing to the Plaintiffs every six months until expiration of this Final Judgment the actions it has undertaken in performing its duties pursuant to this Final Judgment, including the identification of each business practice reviewed and any recommendations made by the TC.
6. Regardless of when reports are due, when the TC has reason to believe that there may have been a failure by Microsoft to comply with any term of this Final Judgment, the TC shall immediately notify the Plaintiffs in writing setting forth the relevant details.
7. TC members may communicate with non-parties about how their complaints or inquiries might be resolved with Microsoft, so long as the confidentiality of information obtained from Microsoft is maintained.
8. The TC may hire at the cost and expense of Microsoft, with prior notice to Microsoft and subject to approval by the Plaintiffs, such staff or consultants (all of whom must meet the qualifications of Section IV.B.2) as are reasonably necessary for the TC to carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Final Judgment. The compensation of any person retained by the TC shall be based on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individual's experience and responsibilities.
9. The TC shall account for all reasonable expenses incurred, including agreed upon fees for the TC members' services, subject to the approval of the Plaintiffs. Microsoft may, on application to the Court, object to the reasonableness of any such fees or other expenses. On any such application: (a) the burden shall be on Microsoft to demonstrate unreasonableness; and (b) the TC member(s) shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred on such application (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), regardless of the Court's disposition of such application, unless the Court shall expressly find that the TC's opposition to the application was without substantial justification.
9. Each TC member, and any consultants or staff hired by the TC, shall sign a confidentiality agreement prohibiting disclosure of any information obtained in the course of performing his or her duties as a member of the TC or as a person assisting the TC to anyone other than Microsoft, the Plaintiffs, or the Court. All information gathered by the TC in connection with this Final Judgment and any report and recommendations prepared by the TC shall be treated as Highly Confidential under the Protective Order in this case, and shall not be disclosed to any person other than Microsoft and the Plaintiffs except as allowed by the Protective Order entered in the Action or by further order of this Court.
10. No member of the TC shall make any public statements relating to the TC's activities.
C. Appointment of a Microsoft Internal Compliance Officer
1. Microsoft shall designate, within 30 days of entry of this Final Judgment, an internal Compliance Officer who shall be an employee of Microsoft with responsibility for administering Microsoft's antitrust compliance program and helping to ensure compliance with this Final Judgment.
2. The Compliance Officer shall supervise the review of Microsoft's activities to ensure that they comply with this Final Judgment. He or she may be assisted by other employees of Microsoft.
3. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for performing the following activities:
1. within 30 days after entry of this Final Judgment, distributing a copy of the Final Judgment to all officers and directors of Microsoft;
2. promptly distributing a copy of this Final Judgment to any person who succeeds to a position described in Section IV.C.3.a above;
3. ensuring that those persons designated in Section IV.C.3.a above are annually briefed on the meaning and requirements of this Final Judgment and the U.S. antitrust laws and advising them that Microsoft's legal advisors are available to confer with them regarding any question concerning compliance with this Final Judgment or under the U.S. antitrust laws;
4. obtaining from each person designated in Section IV.C.3.a above an annual written certification that he or she: (i) has read and agrees to abide by the terms of this Final Judgment; and (ii) has been advised and understands that his or her failure to comply with this Final Judgment may result in a finding of contempt of court;
5. maintaining a record of all persons to whom a copy of this Final Judgment has been distributed and from whom the certification described in Section IV.C.3.d above has been obtained;
6. establishing and maintaining the website provided for in Section IV.D.3.b below.
7. receiving complaints from third parties, the TC and the Plaintiffs concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final Judgment and following the appropriate procedures set forth in Section IV.D below; and
8. maintaining a record of all complaints received and action taken by Microsoft with respect to each such complaint.
D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution
1. Third parties may submit complaints concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final Judgment to the Plaintiffs, the TC or the Compliance Officer.
2. In order to enhance the ability of the Plaintiffs to enforce compliance with this Final Judgment, and to advance the parties' joint interest and the public interest in prompt resolution of issues and disputes, the parties have agreed that the TC and the Compliance Officer shall have the following additional responsibilities.
3. Submissions to the Compliance Officer.
1. Third parties, the TC, or the Plaintiffs in their discretion may submit to the Compliance Officer any complaints concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final Judgment. Without in any way limiting its authority to take any other action to enforce this Final Judgment, the Plaintiffs may submit complaints related to Sections III.C, III.D, III.E and III.H to the Compliance Officer whenever doing so would be consistent with the public interest.
2. To facilitate the communication of complaints and inquiries by third parties, the Compliance Officer shall place on Microsoft's Internet website, in a manner acceptable to the Plaintiffs, the procedures for submitting complaints. To encourage whenever possible the informal resolution of complaints and inquiries, the website shall provide a mechanism for communicating complaints and inquiries to the Compliance Officer.
3. Microsoft shall have 30 days after receiving a complaint to attempt to resolve it or reject it, and will then promptly advise the TC of the nature of the complaint and its disposition.
4. Submissions to the TC.
1. The Compliance Officer, third parties or the Plaintiffs in their discretion may submit to the TC any complaints concerning Microsoft's compliance with this Final Judgment.
2. The TC shall investigate complaints received and will consult with the Plaintiffs regarding its investigation. At least once during its investigation, and more often when it may help resolve complaints informally, the TC shall meet with the Compliance Officer to allow Microsoft to respond to the substance of the complaint and to determine whether the complaint can be resolved without further proceedings.
3. If the TC concludes that a complaint is meritorious, it shall advise Microsoft and the Plaintiffs of its conclusion and its proposal for cure.
4. No work product, findings or recommendations by the TC may be admitted in any enforcement proceeding before the Court for any purpose, and no member of the TC shall testify by deposition, in court or before any other tribunal regarding any matter related to this Final Judgment.
5. The TC may preserve the anonymity of any third party complainant where it deems it appropriate to do so upon the request of the Plaintiffs or the third party, or in its discretion.
V. Termination
1. Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court.
2. In any enforcement proceeding in which the Court has found that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and systematic violations, the Plaintiffs may apply to the Court for a one-time extension of this Final Judgment of up to two years, together with such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
VI. Definitions
1. "Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)" means the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that Microsoft Middleware running on a Windows Operating System Product uses to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
2. "Communications Protocol" means the set of rules for information exchange to accomplish predefined tasks between a Windows Operating System Product and a server operating system product connected via a network, including, but not limited to, a local area network, a wide area network or the Internet. These rules govern the format, semantics, timing, sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a network.
3. "Consideration" means any monetary payment or the provision of preferential licensing terms; technical, marketing, and sales support; enabling programs; product information; information about future plans; developer support; hardware or software certification or approval; or permission to display trademarks, icons or logos.
4. "Covered OEMs" means the 20 OEMs with the highest worldwide volume of licenses of Windows Operating System Products reported to Microsoft in Microsoft's fiscal year preceding the effective date of the Final Judgment. The OEMs that fall within this definition of Covered OEMs shall be recomputed by Microsoft as soon as practicable after the close of each of Microsoft's fiscal years.
5. "Documentation" means all information regarding the identification and means of using APIs that a person of ordinary skill in the art requires to make effective use of those APIs. Such information shall be of the sort and to the level of specificity, precision and detail that Microsoft customarily provides for APIs it documents in the Microsoft Developer Network ("MSDN").
6. "IAP" means an Internet access provider that provides consumers with a connection to the Internet, with or without its own proprietary content.
7. "ICP" means an Internet content provider that provides content to users of the Internet by maintaining Web sites.
8. "IHV" means an independent hardware vendor that develops hardware to be included in or used with a Personal Computer running a Windows Operating System Product.
9. "ISV" means an entity other than Microsoft that is engaged in the development or marketing of software products.
10. "Microsoft Middleware" means software code that
1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating System Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
2. is Trademarked;
3. provides the same or substantially similar functionality as a Microsoft Middleware Product; and
4. includes at least the software code that controls most or all of the user interface elements of that Microsoft Middleware.
Software code described as part of, and distributed separately to update, a Microsoft Middleware Product shall not be deemed Microsoft Middleware unless identified as a new major version of that Microsoft Middleware Product. A major version shall be identified by a whole number or by a number with just a single digit to the right of the decimal point.
11. "Microsoft Middleware Product" means
1. the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows Operating System Product, and
2. for any functionality that is first licensed, distributed or sold by Microsoft after the entry of this Final Judgment and that is part of any Windows Operating System Product
1. Internet browsers, email client software, networked audio/video client software, instant messaging software or
2. functionality provided by Microsoft software that --
1. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System Product;
2. is similar to the functionality provided by a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product; and
3. is Trademarked.
Functionality that Microsoft describes or markets as being part of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as a service pack, upgrade, or bug fix for Internet Explorer), or that is a version of a Microsoft Middleware Product (such as Internet Explorer 5.5), shall be considered to be part of that Microsoft Middleware Product.
12. "Microsoft Platform Software" means (i) a Windows Operating System Product and/or (ii) a Microsoft Middleware Product.
13. "Non-Microsoft Middleware" means a non-Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System Product that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that non-Microsoft Operating System.
14. "Non-Microsoft Middleware Product" means a non-Microsoft software product running on a Windows Operating System Product (i) that exposes a range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs, and that could, if ported to or made interoperable with, a non-Microsoft Operating System, thereby make it easier for applications that rely in whole or in part on the functionality supplied by that software product to be ported to or run on that non-Microsoft Operating System, and (ii) of which at least one million copies were distributed in the United States within the previous year.
15. "OEM" means an original equipment manufacturer of Personal Computers that is a licensee of a Windows Operating System Product.
16. "Operating System" means the software code that, inter alia, (i) controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources (such as the microprocessor and various peripheral devices) of a Personal Computer, (ii) provides a platform for developing applications by exposing functionality to ISVs through APIs, and (iii) supplies a user interface that enables users to access functionality of the operating system and in which they can run applications.
17. "Personal Computer" means any computer configured so that its primary purpose is for use by one person at a time, that uses a video display and keyboard (whether or not that video display and keyboard is included) and that contains an Intel x86 compatible (or successor) microprocessor. Servers, television set top boxes, handheld computers, game consoles, telephones, pagers, and personal digital assistants are examples of products that are not Personal Computers within the meaning of this definition.
18. "Timely Manner" means at the time Microsoft first releases a beta test version of a Windows Operating System Product that is distributed to 150,000 or more beta testers.
19. "Top-Level Window" means a window displayed by a Windows Operating System Product that (a) has its own window controls, such as move, resize, close, minimize, and maximize, (b) can contain sub-windows, and (c) contains user interface elements under the control of at least one independent process.
20. "Trademarked" means distributed in commerce and identified as distributed by a name other than Microsoft® or Windows® that Microsoft has claimed as a trademark or service mark by (i) marking the name with trademark notices, such as ® or (TM) , in connection with a product distributed in the United States; (ii) filing an application for trademark protection for the name in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; or (iii) asserting the name as a trademark in the United States in a demand letter or lawsuit. Any product distributed under descriptive or generic terms or a name comprised of the Microsoft® or Windows® trademarks together with descriptive or generic terms shall not be Trademarked as that term is used in this Final Judgment. Microsoft hereby disclaims any trademark rights in such descriptive or generic terms apart from the Microsoft® or Windows® trademarks, and hereby abandons any such rights that it may acquire in the future.
21. "Windows Operating System Product" means the software code (as opposed to source code) distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal Computers as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named "Longhorn" and "Blackcomb" and their successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion.
VII. Further Elements
Jurisdiction is retained by this Court over this action and the parties thereto for the purpose of enabling either of the parties thereto to apply to this Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify or terminate any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
VIII. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Final Judgment is intended to confer upon any other persons any rights or remedies of any nature whatsoever hereunder or by reason of this Final Judgment.
It's so cute it's almost adorable. He can put any kind of license on it that he wants as much as I care. All the good secrets are hidden in the BSD source anyways...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The picture I get of Microsoft when I read articles like this, is that of a spoiled child who wants all of the toys, wants them his way and wants them right away. However eventually this child grows up and learns that he has no friends. In Microsofts case, the child has grown up and learned to beat the other children with his toys.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Let's take a look at the patents that Microsoft has filed that they are attempting to use to keep Samba down. Keep in mind that these may not be available on freebie patent search sites, as they have not been formally approved yet (a process that often takes 1-2 years). In the meantime, you can find them on Lexus-Nexis and other similar professional service networks.
- U.S. Patent T7086923: Authentication of an Untrusted Third Party
over a Packet Switched Network to control access to Network resources. As
the title may indicate, this is a very general patent; based on my Linux
experiences, the original BSD telnet daemon constitutes prior art. No
problem here.
- U.S. Patent T7065653: Connection-based random access file transport
mechanism with Authentication and Reliability. Sorry, but Apache beat them
to the punch several years ago. No go. Yes, http supports random access.
- U.S. Patent T7689363: Domain identification and logon based on
broadcast network packets. This is a little tougher, but BOOTP was around
before Microsoft was even formed. Check the dates on your RFCs as an
exercise, and tell me just how quickly this one will get thrown out of
court.
Yes, Microsoft has big, bad lawyers - but technically they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Bring RMS, ESR, and their millions of dollars into the picture, and Microsoft is going to have some serious problems enforcing their farce.~wally
I work in a state agency (hence the AC), and the prevailing "unwritten" policy that has been tossed my direction is that we will use Micro$oft platform software for systems that we have a shortage of competent workers to use as resources (ie one, me) due to these principles:
So.. we continue to use M$ software in a highly vulnerable part of our enterprise (web).
What's the point?
The point is that members of the technical community (read: tech workers, not most middle-managers) are already convinced of the issues of interoperability, standards, and the monopoly status of Micro$oft. The hurdle lies in convincing "The Management" that the only way to break this monopoly and to curb these business practices is to take your business elsewhere.
From my perspective, most of those in middle management feel that Micro$oft will do what is "right", and do what is "best" for the tech sector, and that having a large corporation there to take care of our interoperability worries, and our standards issues, and our implementation problems is a nice comfy thing to have. It gives them a sort of comfort zone in which to work in.
I think I started rambling.. I better move to my weblog now so I don't get modded too heavily.
From the Royalty-Free CIFS Technical Reference License Agreement webpage:
Rate this page: 21920 users 1.2 out of 5
and 5 minutes later
Rate this page: 21931 users 1.2 out of 5
Nice to see the number climbing.
Anyone care to chart some statistics about this in Excel?
The lead-in has been interminable.
.. it'll drain us for no purpose whatsoever.
/. that doesn't post so many MS stories anymore. Please.
Let's just draw a line.
MS can have their side of the world, we'll take ours. We don't NEED MS. We don't need to define our accomplishments such that they can interrupt our world by their actions. Let's walk the other way, develop technology that's untouchable to them.
It's the way to go. Getting in a pissing match with MS will not be fruitful
I really, really, really would like to imagine a
Mozilla is licenced under the Netscape Public Licence, not the GPL.
This sig intentionally left blank.
It's in the pay area, but you main want to look at Main Actor:
http://www.mainconcept.de/
There is nothing in the license that prohibits the BSD license. This is only there to annoy RMS and company.
Besides in some ways it's the same as GPL: Microsoft wrote the original code, so they get to decide on how derivatives get distributed.
Ok, I know that there are lots of samba developers here in the U.S., but is this as enforcable in other counties equally as well?
It would greatly hinder development, but what if the protocol work was done overseas? Software is regulated in different ways in different locations.
Just a thought
Trying is the First Step to Failing --Homer Simpson
Microsoft is not writing this license because they feel like it, they are writing it because they being punished for breaking the law.
So no they cant write it however they damn well please.
I have a friend who is a patent attorney and he said that most of Microsoft's patents are unenforceable for this very reason. This is the way out of the hole, people.
and they call linux users childish.
MS: we're going to exclude GPL in this new license not because it makes sense, but simply because we can.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Wally, IMHO, you are being naive. Bet you a free kick in Gate's butt that at least one of those patents will go through.
I would hardly call Perens's commentary a "news article". At best it's an editorial.
From the text of the license:
3.2 Patent License. Subject to Sections 3.3 - 3.7, Microsoft
hereby grants Company a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, personal,
transferable, non-sublicensable, license under its Necessary Claims to (1)
make, use, import, and (2) offer to sell, sell and distribute, directly or
indirectly, to End Users, Company Implementations that fully comply with the
Technical Reference. The above license is limited to implementing the CIFS
communication protocol itself, and does not include any express or implied
licenses or other rights to any underlying technology (operating system
technology, local file system technology, etc.) that may be used to make a
complete file server or other CIFS compatible device.
Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns,
controls or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third
party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to
implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such
implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to
such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the
Technical Reference and distributing such implementations.
If I understand this correctly, Microsoft is claiming patent rights (5,265,261
and 5,437,013) on technology related to implementing CIFS. Basically they're saying "everybody can use our patents royalty-free as long as it's not part of (L)GPL'ed software." Essentially this is a patent license, not a software or documentation license. The "technical reference" is just along for the ride--also free under the same terms. I predicted this about 2 years ago--that Microsoft would turn to software patents after realizing that GPL software was undefeatable by any other means. This is their first attempt.
It seems there are 3 options:
1.) Develop CIFS software outside the US, ignore the patent for use within the US.
2.) Develop a CIFS module for Samba under the BSD license (license compatibility?)
3.) Develop CIFS software at will and ignore M$ altogether.
All three cases probably require some degree of civil disobedience for US citizens--in the form of not honoring software patents. I say go for it. This could become the first time M$ ever legally fought individuals, and believe me--it could raise such a stink in public opinion that it destroys them completely.
This seems to be what Microsoft is trying to fight. At first.
In effect, though, this does prevent GPL/LGPL programs from interacting with other programs or OS's via the CIFS - only if the GPL example above is true. If implementing TCP/IP does not make it fall under the GPL, then implementing CIFS would not make it fall under the GPL - and that is what the license says you can not do.
aaaaaa
Mislabelling like this is exactly the sort of thing that makes people discount slashdot as a biased source. And before people insist 'cnet news' is a proper noun, it's a highschool mistake to not clarify double-meanings like this. "In an editorial in CNET news", for example.
Just because Microsoft devised and patented a way to share printers and stuff over the Internet doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.
Therefore: The Open Source Community needs to devise some small Windows plug-ins that will allow printers and files to be shared across the Internet by a different mechanism. Then anyone using an alternative operating system/network can still plug Windows machines in -- and totally ignore Microsoft's sharing method.
Can anybody explain to me how Microsoft can allow BSD software to use their license while forbiding GPL? Since BSD software can be re-licensed under any other license (the property that MS likes), why couldn't it be re-licensed under the GPL. In other words, what would prevent me from writing a very small BSD program that just used the MS doc but doesn't really do anything useful, and then re-license it under the GPL.
Or probably better, all the MS interoperation code could be put in a BSD library (since there'd be nothing innovative in that part, MS won't even bother) and then link all kinds of GPL programs to that library. Does that make sense?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Did Microsoft just give the FSF grounds for a suit by specifying the GNU trademark in their license, using the trade name without permission, and without acknowledgement that GNU is a trademark property of the respective trademark holder?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
This shit is legal?
If it is, why not just ruin their market? A client which on installation calls a 3rd party server anonymously, to indicate a sale. The dealer donates all the money to the dolphins or maybe the FSF. No money is collected, he just donates on behalf of all the users.
Scenario two: The software is only sold in 1000,000-packs, price is 1 cent. What constitutes a sale? What constitutes prior restraint on business? Microsoft does not make money directly from this license it would seem. Is it possible for them legally to force a licensee to take a profit?
This could sprout a new anti-anti-GPL: Just like BSD but the FSF or somebody else puts up 1 cent for enough copies to cover the world population. We can have a $10 fund to cover any number of M$ products which use this until the sun explodes. Perhaps we should use a dead currency that will give us better compression..
Unfortunately it's not the legality of the claims that makes the difference.
It's the long drawn out trials, threats and general FUD that can go on for years (as MS has just proved), all the while effectively making it impossible for the coders to code.
tell me, do you have the money and resources to prove them wrong in a court of law?
regardless, are you supremely confident enough in your claims to start coding tomorrow? would you get nervous when you get your daily cease and desist letter, knowing you don't have the legal power to stand up to them? what if they go ahead and arrest you? sure, you could get released b/c they have no real legal claim, but is it really worth it? ask Sklarikov(sp?) if he would rather have the software or the jail time.
the real issues, unfortunately, have nothing to do with 'reality' and MS knows this just as well as us.
If this license is allowed by the court,
it is now far worse for the open source developer
than before the trial!
Now there is a specific exclusion for a specific competitor. Would the contract be legal if it named a company instead of the GPL?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Put that into GPL! Fuck'em for good!
It's a fairly simple solution:
Those companies - or projects w/ a GPL'd liscence will have to reverse engineer windows networking in order for it to interconnect. Without the benefit of documentation from M$.
Which make it more difficult but not impossible.
There is also the possibility that someone will sign the M$ agreement - & submit an anonomys code snippet - or update for RFC - the damage is done. IANAL - however now even if the RFC is rejected for legal reasons programmers can reference that RFC and the original code.
After a few revisions & re-writes it will be nearly impossible to tell whether or not a violation of the agreement occurred.
Knowing the practices of M$ they will develope a dick simple & kludgy way to block access - a smart programmer will crack it w/ out looking at proprietary M$ documentation & they will sue him - or the project anyway.
___________________________
I'm not a geek, but I play one on TV.
All reimplementations of this then will be released under a different license that is an exact copy of GPL, plus an additional clause that Microsoft or any entity that is owned by Microsoft is prohibited from using it. Technically it will be perfectly ok under Microsoft's license -- it's not GPL at all, it's not even compatible with GPL.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
It may be stating the obvious, especially on Slashdot, but there are many people in the world who need to hear this: again and again, M$ pushes its products not by trying to make them have the highest quality and win in market competition, and certainly not by innovating, but rather by playing political hardball and introducing gratuitous incompatibilities, all to deprive consumers of choices.
So many times, I hear people insisting that M$ could only have become so powerful by being the best. This seems to derive from a profound conviction that market forces can only ever do The Right Thing, so anything that succeeds in the market is by definition a superior product. I think that market forces make this happen most of the time, but like anything else conceived and practiced by human beings, markets are flawed, in that they sometimes allow products to succeed by shenanigans rather than by quality. And M$ is living proof of it.
Here's M$, reacting to the open source phenomenon, which may truly be the biggest threat they face today. Especially the GPL fosters the existence of software that they couldn't at least copy for their own purposes, unless they open their source code as well. So what do they do? Create even better products that beat out GPL'd software on the market? NOOOOOOOO!!! Instead they create a license designed to make the competitor incompatible, by legal fiat. Not that any consumer of software derives any benefit from the intracacies of software licenses, and not that there's any innovation in legally forbidding interoperation.
What will it take before M$ apologists finally get it?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
The GPL/LGPL basically says you can't change the license on the code to anything non-GPL/LGPL.
The MS license says you can't ever change the license to GPL/LGPL - or, in other words, MS must always have the option to copy/buy/(steal?) the code back.
Really, MS just took the GPL and turned it around on itself. If the ideas behind the GPL are valid, then the ideas behind this license are valid. Clever trick... you ALMOST have to admire their lawyers.
MS has faith that open source can't survive without MS code. Open source has faith that they can survive without MS code. I wonder who's right...
A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire
...and if not, shouldn't she? Seems to me this is clear evidence that the proposed settlement is worthless.
It is not surprising to see MS specifically trying to put viral wording into their contracts to counterstrike the viral nature of the GPL contract.
MS probably sees themselves as the antedote to a the evil GPL virus.
That's what "freedom" is all about
Both the MS and GPL are trying to control the behavior of others.
...that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products does not allow software covered under the...
Unless I missed that day of class?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
if microsoft code is so buggy and prone to being "bad" from what i've read around here, why is everyone so interested in reading/utilising it?
In english please! Grammar of original post is not from this planet - actually I can't grasp the message hidden in there.
This is beyond my knowledge of filesystems and their implementation, but maybe a current open-source or free network filesystem should be improved or created to eliminate the need for samba.
Is this feasible?
In my mind, I think that if people can come up with a clone of the Windows file-sharing mechanism, wouldn't it seem possible to come up with an open-source network filesystem that is at least comparable? Add in good client support on at least Mac OS, Windows, and Linux (and hopefully other OSes as well) and hopefully make it solid enough for widespread adoption in Linux distributions or whatever your favorite open-source OS is, and I think that SMB/CIFS becomes irrelevant. Maybe it could be as simple as improving Linux's implementation of NFS and providing quality client support for non-UNIX operating systems (again network filesystems are not my area of expertise).
Or maybe I'm being too optimistic? I hope not.
Just my two cents.
Question Everything
Why not just make a third license with exactly the same terms as the GPL, but which requires that every user fork over one penny for use of the program to the FSF at some point before January 1, 3000 A.D.?
In this case distribution isn't 'free' since there is a real cost involved, even if that cost is delayed. Companies use the idea of 'delayed costs' all the time in accounting; why can't common citizens do the same?
Better yet, have one person buy the program and then relicense it under the actual GPL. You can do the same with the exempted BSD license and I doubt MS could do a damned thing about it.
(Well, actually, I don't doubt that. They've obviously bought Bush and through him the DOJ, so they can probably do just about any damned thing they like, with Federal marshals to back them.)
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I am not a lawyer. That having been said, the clause at issue seems to be the following:
It occurs to me that there are two well-known open source licenses that satisfy this requirement: the BSD license and the MIT license. They both basically give carte blanche to use the licensed software in any way one pleases, and contain none of the so-called "Intellectual Property Rights Impairing" provisions..
So ... can we re-license these projects under a BSD license? Or is there something I'm missing about the agreement? For example: if we link a GPL program against a BSD library, does that library become GPL?
NB: I believe very strongly that this is an effective way around this problem, so I may play devil's advocate with any replies. Hopefully we can hammer out a solution somehow.
Finding God in a Dog
So what happens (in the future) if we are running an "elite" copy of SAMBA that is not in compliance with MS's new scheme? Can they prosecute the users as well as the developers? Does owning a Windows license allow fair-use by connecting through SAMBA? I'm just wondering how far they could take this...
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.
The above sentence is meaningless. First of all what do you mean by "standard"? A defacto standard like Flash, a standard ratified by a standards body, an industry standard (like Java), or something else? Secondly, regardless of what you meant if MSFT has patents on technology they are well within their rights to license it however they see fit.
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.
Interesting, I am curious as to what MSFT literature you read that made you come to that conclusion. From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL. They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc. This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away.
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business, it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code. Then again this is the same website where people bitch about Slashdot's responsibility to slashdotted webservers and how The Great Slashdot Whine Out will strike a blow for Freedom so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all.
Disclaimer:This post reflects my opinions and does not reflect the opinions, strategies, thoughts, plans or intentions of my employer
- distribute these derivative works in source code, and under the same license, as it is required by the GPL
- or hand over the changes and all rights attached to them to the original author
IANAL, but this would seem to make perfect sense to me, as it avoids the discriminatory clauses in MS' license agreement, and keeps the control the implementor (read: the SAMBA team) has on the same level as it is with the GPL.Everyone just needs to place a little ammendment in their source code with the following statement.
Due to Microsoft's unwillingness to provide technical interoperatablity documentation I hearby make a amendment to the GPL license that accompanies this software.
It is hearby against the terms of this license to run, link, compile and or execute any of the software contained in this package on a operating system that is not exclusively distributed under the GPL and or LGPL licenses.
Do it now and deny the use of our hard work on closed systems
Got Code?
Ok, STILL.. it wouldn't be compatable w/the GPL anyway. And since "Company Implementation" refers specifically to "portions of software that implement CIFS.." (section 1.2), and not the software itself, I still don't see why it would be a problem to link against LGPL modules.
As a nitpick to your nitpick, the efforts that are underway are actually primarily to convert to a MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license. The Relicensing FAQ you point to actually addresses the NPL/MPL tangle in relicensing.
More information on the special rights and differences between the MPL and NPL are available in the MPL/NPL FAQ.
Currently, there are only a few bits left to be relicensed: Have You Seen These Hackers?
Ok, this is a weird contract.
IANAL. There, with that said...
WTF is IPR IMAIRNG? I read the defintion. In fact, the definition looks like blatant sour grapes. They never say what IPR means. Whatever it is ythe GPL/LGPL impairs it.
Also, does this mean that ANY demo or free educational versions are excluded from distribution?
Let me look surprised for a moment. We all knew Microsoft is going to go kicking and screaming until the end.
So here's an idea, instead of integrating their technologies directly into your GPL/LGPL program (Which you can't because of licensing terms), create a completely seperate application/module that can interface with your GPL/LGPL program using it's own protocol designed by you, or perhaps using XML, then make that interface program BSD Licensed, or anything other than GPL/LGPL. Sure it's half-assed, inefficent, but it's also beating them at their own game. For example say Mozilla wants to render a particular ActiveX control (now I'm speaking mostly from my ass because I don't know much about ActiveX at all). The Mozilla team could write an independent plugin, licensed under BSD License that implements that ActiveX control. There you go, a Microsoft technology you implemented using their shared source, but implemented in a plugin licensed under the BSD License, but used in an application licensed under GPL/LGPL.
Of course without the exact terms of the license they may or may not address this.. Then again most of what I just wrote I pulled directly from my ass, but I thought it made some sense. But it's good to see that Microsoft is seriously considering GPL/LGPL software a real competitor or they wouldn't be doing so much to try and stop the spread of it, even going so far as to say it's destroying capitalism. I'm surprised they haven't directly associated it with communism, karl marx and stalin..
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
GPL software represents some of their strongest competition, so a "punishment" that does not help GPL developers is not a punishment at all.
That's some bull$hit straight up. Tell me this. If GPL be such strong competition and all that, why do they need some judge to save they a$$? Ya'll OSS fools need to get ovah the fact that if yo game was strong, you wouldn't need to wait for some court to MAKE Micro$oft cut you some slack. Don't nobody respect no whiny a$$ busta who always crying about how somebody else took they whatevah.
Fact is, none a ya'll OSS software be ready fo prime time. And when it is, like Apache which been tearin up $hit fo a while now, M$ cain't fsck wit it. So all ya'll need to do is quit stressin' about M$ and hone ya'll skills. When ya'll are better than M$ ya'll know it cause you won't need no judges or no punk DOJ bustas.
Na'am sayin?
Both the MS and GPL are trying to control the behavior of others.
True, but in different scopes. MS has and is abusing a monopoly; they can make others do what they want. GPL software only makes you play by their rules if you intend to piggyback on the work of others.
Thomas Galvin
So when's the best time to pull the fire alarm? After the barn has burned down?
M$ is bad!
Step three, vigorously prosecute anyone developing competing products that do not let you tax the proceeds.
The potential synergies of these power grabs are even more scarey than the grabs themselves.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
a)Keep offering the Windows user compatibility, so that it's easier to change OS
b)Stop offering any compatibility at all, while enhancing Linux itself because of that!
Someone suggested improving GPL by not allowing Windows to steal code from Linux. I wouldn't state it that way: just say that GPL/LGPL licensed code will not be allowed in any license that strictly forbids GPL/LGPL. That is clear and understandable, and I wonder wether this issue is already covered in GNU licenses.
This war will only be won the day new computers are shipped with a Linux choice, be it a copy of any Linux, a preinstalled choice, or whatever lets the user have a choice from the already preinstalled Windows, that the user is paying, BTW. Some companies are already doing that, but the vast majority still goes the Micro$oft way.
Finally, dear friend Billy talks to people like Aznar (Spain president), and sign contracts with governments on using Mickey soft, which means a hell lot of $$, and apparently an anti communism step (Aznar can be stated as right wing), but it is quite clear that it is exactly quite the opposite... So, I think that GNU should start doing exactly the same, and start visiting countries with open minds, informing them of Linux, which can be free for them, or even asking governments to support free software with donations, which will lately go back into them like if they had paid for a software suited for them - Germany comes to mind with their KDE support. This idea came to me after the excellent John Maddog speech during the GUADEC, commenting on how many potential users that cannot afford the Windows licensing system are waiting out there. I think that they only need that little push of finding out about Linux, and the rest will be history: world domination
To sig or not to sig.
Well it's not RMS, ESR millions that will help. It's all those companies big and small that use GPL and LGPL software, who's millions will help. Think if all of MS's big bad plans come through, who will be hurt? It will not just be the OSS guys. Similiar to the situatiom between the music industry and gateway. Cast this situation into the dollars and cents mold and you'll see were we can fight.
The MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence is the preferred licence I think.
The NPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence is only for stuff originally under NPL.
The most succinct explanation of what's acceptable and where is under "Acceptable Licenses" near the bottom of the licence policy page.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
come on people, no matter how smart is your comment on that article. Nobody won't agree with you in full nor in part HERE; probably you can only find some slightly disagreement and some academic debeates.
:) )
I'm saying: please send your comment OUT! Write to the NYT. Write to the Whitehouse. Write to your elected representative. Write to the anti-trust officers. Write to the NSA! (no.. they are already listening
...just don't waste time, this time!
- on the other hand, being an EU-citizen, I'll do my part watching for such actions by microsoft in europe, where fortunately things are a little bit different.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Ok...
1) Nothing you do can "infect" work of someone else with the GPL. Indeed, you can not affect their rights in any way. Microsoft's code is, by law, completely safe. (and they know this.)
There is no such thing as "IPR impairing" of Microsoft code... Unless Microsoft is the one doing the impairing. It just can't be done, no way, no how.
2) You cannot copyright a line protocol like TCP, or IP. The problem is that it can't be "fixed in a tangable medim", which is a requirement of copyright. Every packet is unique and transient, and such things can't be copyrighted. It's just the law.
3) However, interacting with another program via TCP can be considered "interoperation", and that IS a Copyright condition for creating a "derived work". The exact definitinon of a derived work of computer programming is, as I recall, "a system of programs that interoperate". The whole is a work, derived from works that make up each part of "the system".
But, interoperation alone is not enough. The parts must be somehow uniquely dependent on each other. You couldn't define Mozilla/IIS to be a derived work subject to the MS EULA, or the NPL, because Mozilla/Apache work just as well. Further, you can have a unique dependency if you reverse engineer the communications. So Mozilla would not subject to a MS EULA if you used only your analysis and knowledge of messages going in and out of IIS to build it.
Make sense?
Is there anything in the CIFS specification that the SAMBA team hasn't already implemented.
Or whateva you be tryin to say. Check this out: this site be for discussin $hit. Ain't no point in sendin out a bunch of unleavened arguments and making yoself look like a punk. People be postin $hit and havin arguments so that they can sharpen up they reasoning. THEN they can aks they rep or some reporta to listen to what they have to say and act like they know what they be talkin about cause they already shared they opinion and people be agreein wit it.
Na'am sayin?
Even if this was posted befo, it don't look like the discussion was over. As long as people be conversatin about somthin, that's what /. be all about.
Na'am sayin?
Scenario 1: An implementation can be released under the BSD license, which can then be 'forked' by a third party (the fork being GPL) and the original abandoned. Microsoft can do nothing. This license means nothing.
Scenario 2: For some reason in the license, the action outlined above is not possible. This must be due to something in the license. If it just says 'you may not relicense under GPL' you just relicense under the X license (say) and then under GPL. The only way microsoft can get around this is to say something like:
If you redistribute source of this program or of a derived work of this program this paragraph must remain intact, and the GPL or other IPR must not be used.
Now what do we call that, boys and girls? A viral license.
RMS's bogeyman was closed source, MS's is the GPL. They both discovered that if you want to release the source, you need a viral license. Unfortunately for microsoft, that makes their whole excuse for eradicating the GPL collapse. Oops.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Isn't this also a way of restricting competition? If there is a company which has a bussiness model based on GPL/LGPL then is this not a method of throwing them out of the market by forbiddig them access to info otherwise accesible to other companies?
It is like showing the people how a disease can be cured and then forbid them use the cure because they give it for free and insist that their cure to be free.
I do agree GPL/LGPL makes about the same but shouldn't we apply here the general interest bias?
M$ pushes its products not by trying to make them have the highest quality and win in market competition, and certainly not by innovating, but rather by playing political hardball and introducing gratuitous incompatibilities, all to deprive consumers of choices.
This nonsense be why OSS don't be goin nowhere. All ya'll be standin around pointin to yo $hit and saying "This right here be better than M$. It be stable, and cheap, man, word up." Check this out blood, don't no consumers care about no stability or security, or especially about no damn philosohy. They computer is just a machine and they don't care what makes it work as long as it does for most of the time. If they computer runs slow or crashes or some $hit, they don't be thinkin about how much memory Word or Excel be wastin. They be checkin the fuse box or tellin they kids to quit jumpin around upstairs cause it be rattlin the wires and $hit. And if they do complain about M$, it's because some busta like you told them that Bill Gates was the devil or some $hit and they beleived you cause you knew how to Ctrl-Alt-Delete they $hit and get it workin again.
But the bottom line is, computas is already hard enough for them to deal with without havin to learn some whole new suite of funky looking OSS $hit that does everything they old M$ $hit did but not quite the same. Quality ain't an issue for them, ease of use is, and the easiest $hit to use is the $hit tha already be installed, and do it's job just fine most of the time.
$hit, if it wasn't for IE crashing, people just be wasting that much more time searchin for p)rn and $hit. M$ be doin them a favor.
And those people that do care about security or some anti-capitalist philosophy already be usin somethin else, so ya'll ain't go nothin to cry about.
Na'am sayin?
He's absolutely right, Microsoft should have every right to screw us and screw us while becoming/being a Monopoly. We should also have the right to tell them to screw off when we've had enough.
The whole point to Capitalism is to win. Microsoft has won... they're it, end of story (well this chapter anyway). It's kinda screwed up to think that the US government will give new businesses tax breaks and whatnot to help them get started and then once they've won, declare them a monopoly and try to break them. I don't agree with the whole DOJ trial thing at all. These things will sort themsleves out.
I think Microsoft will continue their shit, get even greedier and will drive everyone away without the government's help. Actually they'd probably bury themselves quicker without the little slap on the wrist to slow them down and give us time to get acclimated to the ever increasing levels of pain.
Microsoft seem to have shot themselves in the foot again. Sys admins will be gleefully rubbing their hand that they can finally rid their networks of Windows. If the madness of Licencing 6 didn't give them enough leverage to persuade their bosses away from microsoft, incompatibility with their servers certainly will. Also this rather gives an advantage to developers outside the US, what amusing buffoonery will they bless us with next?
i have absolutely no problems with ssh/scp and nfs. does all and more and adds the power of the command line.
This
For example, the Linux kernel is GPL'd but allows non-Free modules to be loaded dynamically. Lots of Free programs may be linked against non-Free system libraries, e. g. on AIX or Solaris. Why can't we do the same with Samba? Of course, the module or library has to be optional, but so is a non-Free kernel module.
I'll write something (which is true) on a piece of paper, knowing YOU know the truth but noone else does.
Then I state: If YOU're creating something that uses the truth on that paper this is illegal. Maybe you have used a different concept, but this can not be considered true without any proof.
(as translated from a german forum (heise.de) posted by Frodoger)
scary.
Think of just one copy was found at M$, we could collectively sue the shit out of them. Get the BSA to audit them, and give them lots of bad publicity.
Well, one can dream...
In Murphy We Turst
Took me a while to understand :-)
It talks about how
[Microsoft's new license, that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products]
does not allow
[software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement].
If the objectives are:
a) Share files between UNIX and Windows machines in a transparent manner.
b) Share printers between UNIX and Windows machines in a transparent manner.
Why do we have to use MS stuff?
There is PC-NFS and maybe other solutions.
And what is stopping us to create a SAMBA-FS system with a new protocol (the necessary software to understand the protocol would be installed in the Windows machine to make things transparent to users).
I believe it is time to solve problems and not to mimic MS solutions, which is what sadly has been happening for a while in many OS projects.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
- Developer with access to the source code writes a paraphrased or pseudo-code representation of a key algorithm or data structure.
- Developer posts their representation to a NG anonymously, using a cyber cafe or open-access computer somewhere so they can't be traced.
- OSS developer downloads the representation and writes their own implementation.
Now, I realise that step 1 is agains the contract terms, but I could realistically see a situation where a developer working in a software company could take a photocopy/ burn a CD of the source without having ageed to the license themselves; or to put it another way, if the code gets distributed widely enough for it to get close to increasing competition in the OS and apps market then it will be on a lot of desks in a lot of companies with lots of margin for error in terms of who gets to see it.My questions are:
Whoa! Though you were correct, that last guy has a point: Too often, we rant on and on about the $hit that's going down, but we don't do anything about it. We do need to let our elected officials know about this. WE let the DMCA get past. There's another bill that's going to take down internet radio. Now, RIAA and the MPAA is trying to ram the CBDTPA down our throats! This "theft" of our consumer rights has to stop. And we must do more to keep this bull$hit out.
A while back I was looking for a decent free implemation of an NFS client for Windows 2000, for talking to a Linux Server.
I couldn't find one (maybe I'm blind). This is a bad thing. It means the community is bending over for a MS network protocol. Turn the tables and make the MS platform the network's bitch.
My point here is that instead of dealing with bullshit IP patents and paying royalties to use a defacto networking standard, use the "released" source to build better NFS (or whatever you fancy) clients for Windows platforms.
He copy-n-pasted two high-modded posts from the very similar Slashdot story seen not too long ago. Look at his posting history [slashdot.org], and you'll see these two posts on this story, and a few -1 Offtopic/Troll posts as well.
Please, mod the parent down. Don't let a troll plagiarize other people's insightful and quality posts. Apologies for being so blatantly offtopic, and for "crossposting", if you will, but someone had to point it out.
shouldn't they try something more specific like patenting the string f3h556hh4j6g3457jh567 sent in the packet to the server which authenticates clients with the existence of the same string?
They already have billions of dollars, why are they so scared of the GPL that they have to fight against it. Can someone from Microsoft explain why your company does such stupid things?
That nasty Open Source stuff has been pervading MS for some time. Here's a few examples off the top of my head. Now if it is "inside" then presumably some pretty serious surgery is needed in Redmond quickly before the cancer spreads even more.
. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/iis/deploy/rollout/la pa2iis.asp "SAMBA is also useful for transferring files between computers running UNIX and Windows operating systems." - so that's alright then!
In the Group Policy editor (2000/XP) there is a setting to use unencrypted passwords with third party SMB servers - this is transparently a support option for Samba which used to require it, many moons ago.
Smoothwall has been registered by several MS employees (see http://www.smoothwall.org) in preference to using Internet Connection Sharing, which is not described favourably.
This just made me laugh: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default
MS really needs to get its own house in order pretty damn quickly. That GPL stuff is everywhere.
Don't attack the mechanism, attack the agenda and the result...
Microsoft will never put this into effect. Even if it did, why should we care? We've been doing great without any help from M$.
the swedish paper "Aftonbladet", which in the 1830:s annoyed the government so much that it was banned. The next day/week they published themselves under the name "Aftonbladet 2" (or something similar), was banned again, after which they published the new paper "Aftonbladet 3" and so on, I think they reached something like "Aftonbladet 80", until they got accepted/tolerated by the swedish state.
... and if they sue, countersue for antitrust violations. Even if they win eventually, it'll be tied up in court for years ;-)
Say no to software patents.
Microsoft doesn't like competition. Film at eleven.
I know this is slightly offtopic, but I have been waiting for an excuse to publish it, so here goes anyway.
I seriously believe that Microsoft is fully correct about this aspect of the GPL. *graveyhead dons asbestos underpants*. The GPL is communist with respect to the fact that it puts everyone (even Microsoft) on the same playing field. Just because it didn't work well as a means of government and economy doesn't mean that the ideas of Carl Marx, et. al. were totally defunct.
Microsoft, however, has used the statement to spin it as evil, in the same way as the US government treated communism during the cold war. I thought we were over that as a species.
Now, go forth and write code, comrades!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
You can find the address somewhere on the web I'm sure.
Between the DMCA and other laws passed for the express purpose of enriching large corporations at the expense of the multitude of small niche competitors, and the rampant abuse of patent law, software development in the United States is rapidly becomming a closed guild wherein only the large corporations who own portfolios of spurious software 'patents' can afford to play. When an independent software developer or a small software company discovers that fundamental computing concepts are locked up in idiotic patents which they can not afford to either license or litigate, they will, I believe, decide to do something else with their time. Why not? If every piece of software you release into the world exposes you to the threat of financially ruinous litigation, how can you release anything? That is exactly the environment Microsoft is creating.
Yet not all software is developed in the United States. At the moment the rest of the world pays lip service to US copyright and patent law, including the DMCA, because the US is such a large market. But what happens when it becomes much more expensive to do business in the US because of the cost of defending your products against patent litigation, or due to the need to purchase multiple patent 'licenses' for every product you sell? In this case, extensive portfolios of software patents become a barrier to trade and I would expect to see action in international trade court against them at some point.
History teaches us that when confronted with difficult obstacles people tend to find a way over, around, or through them. I believe that we will find ways around these spurious, artificial legal barriers as well. Being a simple sort of person, I imagine that we'll end up simply ignoring them. Even Microsoft can't bring 10,000 patent infringement lawsuits against every individual writing GPL'd or otherwise competing software. They'll pick a few high-profile cases as warnings to others but eventually people will figure out that Microsoft is not about to spent a couple of million dollars suing each independent developer. I expect to see cases where developers release software and then 'disappear' into the void, essentially becoming phantom targets. I expect to see developers release software in other, more innovation-friendly countries. I expect that net effect of the DMCA and current patent law will be, like the tax code of the IRS, simply to make most of us criminals, just because no-one knows all of the law or all of the moronic patents which have been granted. We live with it now, we'll manage to live with it then. The difficulty for a societal point of view is that once people begin ignoring 'bad' laws, they ignore the 'good' ones also. Injudicious use of intellectual property law in a misguided attempt at protecting software monopolists will simply result in widespread disregard of all intellectual property laws, including copyright.
"Sten". My name is "Sten". As far as you know!
Think about it like a family gathering (well.. 'dream' family anyways). Everybody brings some food with them, and give to everyone wanting it. What would you like about some cousin that'd just come and take without ever giving anything (or even saying if it had some hair in it)?
Your comparison is all wrong. You make it seem like every user is obliged to add something to the program. They are not (even with GPL'ed code). Of course, the entire example is flawed anyway since the cookies are infinitely replicable. Such a feat hasn't been performed with physical goods since Jezus used his magic on the bread and fish.
A better (but still flawed) example would be: suppose that you give your old, run-down Mustang to a poor college student. He puts a lot of hours in it and shapes it into a true hotrod. What would you think of him selling it for a decent figure?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
I don't think anyone with a brain cell could deny it. Microsoft is desperate in its attempt to put a stranglehold on Open Source. They're losing and they know it.
Welcome to the world of competition Microsoft.
We've been waiting for you.......(about 20 some odd years)
Nick
I like how the rating for the page is on a scale of 5 but it's impossible to rate the page below 1.
~Kevin
:)
What is needed is to stop MS treating everyone like dirt. It needs a BSD style licence that specifically states that MS can in no way use this software but anyone else can. Since MS is not above using BSD style code it means that this option will no longer available for them.
I'm not an American and I will be writing to the European comittee investigating MS and ask them to note this new MS licence and it's possible effects on the European Software industry.
I'm pretty sure IBM will have noticed this as well and this will negatively impact their business since they into Linux as well.
It's funny, I could have sworn that Linux could run non-GPLed software.
If expended our energy towards getting rid of M$ instead of complaining about their licensing, nobody would care what their "agreement" says. It's not like M$ licensing problems are a new concept. They are bad now, with the forecast for even more restrictions & limitations. When sales drop, they'll know they went too far. Until that happens, it's a green light for licensing "innovation".
Then again, when their sales figures drop, maybe they'll just blame piracy.
"In this CNET news article, it talks about how Microsoft's new license that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products does not allow software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement (such as Linux, SAMBA, and Mozilla)."
WTF, is it just me or is this sentence gramatically wrong? After reading it about five times, I just can't figure it out, the d^@n thing doesn't even make sense.
Question everything.
After all this man is in charge, he can't possibly have a huge ego that would put his desire to make money over our right to choose what OS we use and what software we use with it. It was probably his idea, it's one of the dimmer lightbulbs to the right of the couch.
>
Where have you been living? In a cave in Afghanistan?
makers?
At one time, Chrysler Motors specified the use of MOPAR brand oil to continue their car warranties. The use of Penzoil or any other non-MOPAR brand would invalidate the warranty. Highly illegal in today's legal climate.
Basically, MS is invalidating its warranty and permission-to-use licenses if you use a non-MS branded product.
Looks to me like the SAMBA project leaders need to immediately cut off access for commits to their CVS servers until everyone who wants to contribute signs a contract that swears that they haven't seen Microsoft's documentation, and promises that they never will.
dk
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
Still, isn't decryption/decoding of standards compliance ommitted in the DMCA?
Yes, 17 USC 1201 permits circumvention aimed strictly at interoperability, but many judges have flatly ignored that provision.
I thought the Sony v Colecio settled that (I knew it's sony versus some other vid game company, as the other company won).
The issue in Sega v. Accolade was the Trademark Security System in the Sega Genesis console, which gave the program on the cartridge a short time to call a BIOS routine that displayed "Licensed by Sega", or the BIOS would halt the program. The judge ruled that copying Sega's code to do this was fair use (read the decision to see why). The Sega Dreamcast, Nintendo Game Boy and Game Boy Advance platforms use nearly the same system (except it's a piece of data in the header instead of a piece of code that must be called within time constraints), making it perfectly lawful for homebrew developers to put the logo data in the header as long as they don't cause trademark confusion (which can be avoided with a simple "NOT LICENSED BY $CONSOLE_MAKER" in the initial screen display).
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA don't replace Sega v. Accolade not only because of the interoperability exemption but also because the systems in the Genesis, DC, Game Boy, and GBA platforms don't control access to a work copyrighted by the console maker, and only (representatives of) the copyright owner can sue under 17 USC 1201.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Also, I think that BSD licences are not specifically singled out in the MS CIFS license because MS lawyers don't consider them "viral" in the above sense of having side effects on bundled software components.
It seems to me that what would be ideal is if vendors could distribute packages in which each component might have its own licensing model: some may be GPL and some may be proprietary; but each party -- creator, implementor, vendor, and end-user -- should be able to declare, discover, and protect their rights with the least amount of legal hassle. It also seems conceivable to me that GPL is not the universal answer to this ideal any more than is closed-source corporate licenses such as MS and/or current digital rights management trends. Surely there must be efforts uderway to improve/facilitate our legal options?
I certainly hope that Samba and Linux and others can implement CIFS for free or with open source. But I don't think MS is preventing this. I also don't think that they're trying to spread FUD. In fact, as someone who is at least making an effort to be a realist, it seems to me that there might be reasonable justifications for MS's viewpoint on this issue. I'm not a great legal scenario craftsman, but suppose a vendor wants to sell a reasonably priced CIFS product for Linux with an optional SLA for a particular market in which the full samba implementation is not desired for security reasons, and the GPL hindered them. Is such a scenario conceivable? I think MS is correct in asserting the non-universality of an equation like FREE = OPEN_SOURCE = GPL. Whatever their merits, they are not the same things, and licenses must be allowed to make such differentiations.
Again, I am neither a lawyer nor a polemic. I just think it's important to see the driving force behind both sides of an issue before deciding their merits. Please correct me if I have misunderstood, misrepresented or missed the real issue. And please help create a working solution to this problem by first understanding and helping others to understand the real issues.
The First Amendment only applies when the GOVERNMENT is attempting to prevent you from doing what you stated above.
In the case of a GOVERNMENT-granted monopoly such as a copyright or patent, the GOVERNMENT passes laws that prevent you from saying some things.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is a private company who does not fall under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.
A private company that takes advantage of powers granted by the GOVERNMENT to suppress speech. If the GOVERNMENT gives a private company the right to deny something to the people, then the GOVERNMENT is (through the private company) denying it to the people, possibly in violation of the First Amendment. This is part of why copyrights and trademarks have "fair use" provisions, and patents restrict making, using, and selling inventions but not discussing them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm not trolling, but that's not a news piece. Yes, it's on their 'news.com' site, but it's an opinion column, written by Bruce Perens.
I'm not saying he's not right, it's just that presenting it as news is misleading.
I don't believe there are no legal grounds, historical or otherwise, for licensing text materials with provisions on what you can or cannot do with the knowledge within.
Ever heard of a non-disclosure agreement? Trade secret law?
If I buy a copy of a M$ technical reference from my local bookstore
Then trade secret law doesn't apply because the information is readily available to the general public.
The same applies to software itself assuming that code is considered free speech.
Code is speech, but there are some exceptions to the First Amendment, such as the "clear and present danger" rule.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It seems to me that the only software vendors that can be harmed by the GPL are those making software that a bunch of hackers, cost-sharing companies, or community-minded individuals would be _willing_ to make for free.
Why should we keep paying for what some or all of us really would make--and already have made--for free?
Matt
And with Qt ... only the X11 version is released under both the QPL and the GPL
Qt Free Edition for X11 runs on *ntel PCs (through FreeBSD, Linux, Cygwin, or WeirdX) and Macs (through rootless X on Aqua). And if you want to, the GPL lets you port it so that it will run natively on any other windowing system. Precisely what more could you ask for?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Essentially, what MSFT is trying to do is attach a little bit of self-replecating "DNA" to their IP. Whenever a cell is innoculated with MSFT's code, it becomes immune to the GPL virus.
So, if I have a BSD project and I link it to MSFT's code, its genetic makeup is slightly altered--it is now a mutant cell that produces the enzyme Microsoftase which breaks down radical Leftist subcultures... OK, at this point the analogy breaks down, but I think you get the idea.
Let me state with no equivocation that I LIKE THIS. The GPL-lovers with their twisted notion of freedom can whine all they want about this not being fair competition, but it is. I had been looking for ways to defeat the GPL without making it illegal (there is nothing that says you have to use MS file sharing systems, you can still use your own GPL'd file sharing system). This is the best idea I've seen yet. Now, it would be cool if some other people would release legal virii on the Open Source world--it could break the near monopoly that GPL has on OSS licenses.
That said, I don't like SW patents and hope that they don't rely too much on that technique. The GPL has threatened to use patents too (and has done so for the Mersenne Twister algorithm) IMHO, patents are the nuclear weapons in the GPL vs. Proprietary war. Let's both keep our fingers off the button. OK?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Your poem has too many syllables. Try this one:
Na... I use GPL/OS products even when they are somewhat less than useful (assuming they're not completely broken), just to spite MS, and the Bill Gates lackeys that work all around me.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
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 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.
Well, it's not only the (L)GPL and/or source, you're not even allowed to give it away for free, hmmm, does this make giving away free demos illegal?
If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving definitely isn't for you.
don't write M$!!
Whenever I use the term "M$" to refer to Microsoft in a Slashdot comment, I put 10 LET M$ = "Microsoft" at the top of the comment. It's a line of Basic code meaning "assing the string 'Microsoft' to a string called M". In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Microsoft was primarily a vendor of Basic interpreters. Consider my use of M$ analogous to the common use on this board of Perl's $var interpolation (even though Basic itself doesn't do such interpolation).
Here's a sample of Basic code:
Result:
Will I retire or break 10K?
Other for-profit companies may not appreciate such exclusion-by-patent tactics, either.
While Linux and other GPL operating systems and code may not have millions of dollars or a legal team capable of challenging such tactics, large companies such as Apple (which uses a version of Samba in Mac OS X, has a few billion dollars, and a dedicated, rabid legal team) and Sun would be happy to take on MS on this issue, particularly since they are a proven monopoly and have that disadvantage as the "bully."
The only problem is that neither Apple or any other company will do anything until it directly threatens their interests. I wouldn't expect them to do anything about the effects that this MS action has on GPL software and products proper.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
The MP3 encoding process is covered by a software patent and that is why no free versions of the software are allowed (under many countries laws.) The problems with the patent system run deep and have been well documented on this site. This is simply Microsoft's first attempt at using it to stop competition from open source software. It won't be their last.
Software patents wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that you can get a patent on almost anything these days. "Give them the patent and let the courts sort it out" is they way things go now. Then the courts say: "well they got the patent so they must have invented it".
Solution: Open Source Patents
The same principals that made open source software pry the software markets open could probably also be used to pry the software patents open.
Since you can patent almost anything remotely original and most of the truly original thoughts come from outside Microsoft the best solution would be to beat them at their own game. Take all kinds of patents on basic things that Microsoft needs and use them to force Microsoft to let the open source community write compatible software. You could take some basic essential software patents and say they can't be used with any other patents that can't be used with open source software. For example, if you had a patent on an "if..then" statement Microsoft couldn't use an "if..then" anywhere in the code that implements their CIFS patent without allowing open source interoperability.
Since patents are expensive and individuals don't generally get them and give them away this would rely on companies like IBM who have deep collections of software patents. If they started an organization and pooled a bunch of existing patents they could start convincing (bullying) software companies to donate their patents on the condition that they would always be free for them to use and would be used to open the software markets back up again so they could compete and innovate.
Ultimately there is a need to completely eliminate software patents. Most software patents are on tiny insignificant things that are built on top centuries of inventions from the if..thens to compilers to transistors back to electricity itself. Copyright is gently strong enough to protect software. It prevents someone from taking your invention and reusing it. Software patents make it illegal for someone to invent a different way to do the same thing. That isn't what the patent system is for.
Eviscerate the proletariat -Stewie Griffin
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
..isn't GNU. It's LPF. Maybe this will help people finally understand this.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
VirtualDub runs quite well under (recent?) incarnations of Wine. As do many other video-related tools. Oh, and of course there's also Broadcast2000 (originally found here, but now also to be found here), and (for the more adventurous) its successor Cinelerra, which is not on their main site but lives on the Sourceforge project site. Beware, compiling Cinelerra is not for the faint of heart.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Is she allowed to look at "new" evidence that wasn't presented during the trial? (Seems to me like DoJ made things aweful easy on Microsoft, by focusing so much on web-browser issues.)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
n.t.
If a given CIFS-appliance vendor doesn't want to be "restricted" by L/GPL, then they use the approved Microsoft implementation. Simple as that, no? Will someone be able to eventually argue that MS, given its monopoly position, that its protocols, file formats, etc. now form a "common carrier", and that MS needs to not restrict (maybe not facilitate, but not restrict) interpreters of said protocols?
My complaint about John Ashcroft
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Ashcroft's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Ashcroft, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Ashcroft to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Ashcroft's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Ashcroft is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Ashcroft's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Ashcroft is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Ashcroft has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.
Even Ashcroft's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Ashcroft's refrains. That's why they created "Ashcroft-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Ashcroft knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Ashcroft's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Ashcroft's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.
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.
Okay, GPL/LGPL are specifically mentioned, little to do about that. But any other license should be fine. Not even the GPL and LGPL say anything about software you merely distribute with GPL'ed software.
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope."
This refers to distribution of the software under the software itself, not of other works. The GPL is only covering other software when that software is a copy or modification of the the original work. I assume most other licenses work the same and thus have no problem at all, thanks to Microsoft's clueless phrasing.
You'd really think they still haven't actually read the full GPL.
... As does Wine, or VMWare. This gap is provenient of the mixed migrations, say a win* net that needs a proxy/file repository/swis-army-knife server, or companies that are really changing to linux desktops.
Users and even network administrators are still too short sighted when it comes to *nix. With education, one stops needing microsoft at all. Hard to realize when you insist on sending or receiving word documents by e-mail.
If the Samba team still wants to keep compatibility (I'd name it walk behind) in a future, no doubt they will have to go BSD. But think Coda, or Intermezzo, or GNU GFS: who *needs* compatibility now?
I see 57005 people
Wrong.
Sorry the attempted remedy was reversed, Not the charge. BTW, don't your M$ masters pay more if you don't pull the AC thing...
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
The ideal solution is to invalidate software patents. However, in the interim the free software community needs to start obtaining software patents on enabling technologies and witholding them from companies which discriminate against free software. Additionally, there needs to be a central organization, which owns the patents, cannot be corrupted or taken over, and has the pooled money and resources to litigate the software patents.
... Aforementioned code may be incorporated into Microsoft (tm) products provided that William Gates and Steven Ballmer kiss my pasty white ass, for a duration of at least, but not limited to, ten seconds.
Whether or not this conditions is included, there's nothing a licensee can do that would affect the rights of Microsoft and its other licensees to use that specification.
It certainly looks like it is.
But the GPL and LGPL don't do that.
I and others believe that the people who came up with this aimed to imply, falsely, that the GPL and LGPL do place restrictions on bundled software, as a justification for banning their use for software based on Microsoft specifications.
I honestly can't see what these sections are supposed to protect Microsoft from, other than fair competition.
Does this mean they're setting out a standard they know infringe on other's patents and are trying to bully them into free licenses? I love that 'freedom' to give up my patent rights.
The GNU license does not require that any software distributed with the GPL-licensed software be anything. That is a complete and total lie. Software that is distributed with a GPL-licensed product does not have to be anything.
It is only software that incorporates GPL software that needs to be distributed under the GPL. Because there is an ambiguous case with libraries and similar forms, the LGPL exists. If you just link and don't change the basic library functionality, your overall product can be licensed as you like it.
It's really quite simple. GPL prevents people from stealing other people's open source efforts and publishing them as their own. This is the intellectual property "right" that Microsoft wants to have.
"Or can you imagine a school that learns you how to add 1+1"
Yo dawg, I hear ya.
Your brain doesn't have those tags YET. But just wait until you see what the next generation of MS's digital rights management software/hardware package will do. You attach a simple electrical machine to your neck before reading the documentation, and then ever after when you start to think about anything in there 220 volts is delivered to your cerebellum. And of course MS provides no warranty of any particular fitness for this device, and cannot be held liable when it kills you.
Seriously, what would stop them from writing this into the agreement? You would STILL have yokels saying "If you don't like the terms then just don't attach the MS death machine to your body, but boy will you be missing out on Clippy XP."
Should count as a copyright violation shouldn't it? The original intent of copyright was to prevent unscrupulous publishing houses from buying a copy of a book and then churning out their own copies. Sounds like plagiarism to me.
The original author when releasing it to the public domain specifically granted a license to everyone to use the material however they want. The author could ALSO license the material under a restrictive license to people he or she could foist such a license on (think suits). HOWEVER someone who got it from the public domain cannot be held accountable to that restrictive license.
If anyone has a reason to think this is incorrect, please post.
They cannot restrict what you do with facts, only with copyrighted material. You can't reprint their standard, but you can certainly make use of the facts contained within it however you like.
This is NOT code. This is NOT software. This is documentation of how a standard works. Like a description of HTTP traffic. What makes standards standards is that they are open. I can go look up the rfc for email addresses, or look up the w3c's document object model specification whenever I want. I can't copy those documents and publish them under my name, that would be copyright violation, but that is all the protection copyright grants. Facts are facts, and are NOT copyrightable. As long as I don't sign the stupid agreement I'm free to use these facts any way I want. What MS is counting on is that people will be afraid to use these facts because they'll be hit with an MS lawsuit alleging that they MUST have read the document and signed the agreement to get access to the facts. Which isn't true, you could reverse engineer the standard or get the facts some other way. But I'm sure they'll pile on the bogus lawsuits as an intimidation tactic anyway, and it will work. I do not condone the abuse of America's court system, which is funded by my tax dollars, for such frivolous and baseless lawsuits.
Whether you're infringing or not Microsoft will still sue you.
Microsoft is simply setting the terms of a transaction to which both parties consent. They are NOT preventing anyone from using the material and selling the result. So long as the terms aren't violated, the user can transfer the product. It seems to my admittedly non legal mind that the secret here is to simply describe that sale in an advantageous way.
There are so many fun variations on the idea of selling that this will drive M$ nuts. Remember that a sale occurs when there is an exchange of value. And the long standing definition of value is "The value of a thing is that which it may bring"
Method One
Sell it in exchange for a "survey response". Put up a page that has two bottons and the question MicroSoft Sucks Yes or No? Clicking either takes you to the download page. The "Seller" is exchanging the software and source in exchange for the "valuable" information from the user. I don't see how M$ could possibly go after this type of sale and distribution of source and binaries. Buying survey answers by offering valuable things has a very long history.
Taking it a step further, anyone who adds code to the software "Sells" it to the copyright holder in exchange for access to the results of the survey. The relative value assigned by the consenting parties to the transaction is entirely between the parties. So long as the eula is not violated, which does not seem to be the case in this hypothetical, there really isn't anything MS could sue about.
Method Two
Treat it as a consignment. Something like:
"By downloading this software, you agree to become a licensed distributor and are required to pay the copyright holder by providing the survey results, if any, obtained from further distributions. In the interests of reducing bandwidth costs, the seller and you agree that the reports are to be filed every 50 million copies distributed"
Making changes to the code could be treated as exactly the same as returning damaged goods under consignment. The consignees are not allowed to "sell" damaged goods and are usually required to return them to the consignor. Thus, under the consignement model, anybody who finds a "damaged" piece of software can "return" it by describing the damage and if they are really helpful, suggesting how it can be fixed.
Method 3 Software as "Work for Hire"
The software is being developed as a work for hire which the user will pay for upon "completetion" of the project. Then the developers simply never declare the project completed (How many projects don't get completed in real contract developemnt?). As with almost all work for hire contracts, providing source and interim versions to the purchaser during developement is a normal requirement. It also reinforces the idea that the users should report to the developers any bugs or missing features since the software can't be complete so long as these exist. For the developer side, treat it as also "Work for Hire" under a barter system. This is like doing dishes at a restaraunt in exhange for a meal. The coder provides source code, bug fixes etc in exchange for the software. I don't see how this violates Microsoft's EULA.
None of these are an optimal solution but one truism of laws is that any attempt to gain an advantage by excessive extrapolation of law can usually be countered by another excessive extrapolation of the law. Microsoft continually tortures the law to thier advantage, there is no reason the Open Source community can't do the same thing.
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.
The GPL (like all Open Source licenses I know of) does *not* place any restriction on software that might be distributed alongside GPLd software, only on the GPLd program itself. That's why distribs can provide packages like Netscape4 or the nVidia drivers alongside GPLd apps like the Kernel or glibc.
Note that the wording is such that the GPL is prohibited anyway, despite not falling within the the conditions of the restrictions. That could be hard to defend, if it came to court.
While this is an interesting development, i'm sure its not really a big surprise to the OS community at large. Assuming this attempt by MS to freeze OS out of the picture succeeds, what then of linux?
I've been tinkering with linux for approximately 8+ years, nothing major. I've always been of the mind that linux has, with some notable exceptions (Apache for one), been playing catch up with MS. Whenever a new feature is released in Windows, OS follows not far behind with an implementation. It appears, at times that MS's progress is driving OS's progress. I'm not saying this is wrong, after all, what other way is there to stay compatible? However, once frozen out, will OS be able to keep linux as robust and dynamic as it has been? Of course there will be those that ignore the license all together and do their own thing, but we cant all do that. As others have pointed out, legal disputes are costly and MS has effectively bottomless coffers.
I'm interested in hearing any comments on this. I'm not looking to be flamed so if you are gearing, safe the butane.
Thanks,
-K-
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
"While patented features in file sharing would handicap Linux from being able to exchange files over an office LAN (local area network), similar future efforts could ban open-source tools like OpenOffice and AbiWord from operating with documents created using Microsoft Office, and Web browsers like Mozilla from viewing Web sites produced with Microsoft software."
But of course it would be fine for IE to view content running on open source Apache web servers?
I would honestly like to see how MS would react if the open source community began blocking MS software from accessing information on its servers.
Sun might've got the code for StarOffice 6. Sybase could have do this for Watcom C++/Fortran 11.0c. Netscrape, I mean Netscape, could have done this for Netscape 5.0.
But they are now all GPL. You never know when your code will hit the open source world.
-twb
Sure you can look at the code,if your company is worth more than a billion dollars!
There is no way poor-old-jim-bob the "college code newbie" will ever get a chance to look at the code.
Let's make this a bit simpler:
It does not take a rocket scientist to see why MS is doing this.
1. MS releases example code under contract that excludes most competitors.
2. This gives MS grounds for a lawsuit against anyone who implements an interoperable product -- regardless of merit.
3. MS abuses this to use the legal system to drain opposition funds.
I do not question MS's right to choose a license for anything.
I do, however, assert that there is not really any other compelling reasoning behind this.
If a MS rep were to testify to this in court, MS would get nailed. Seriously, filing meritless lawsuits as a financial gambit (really, does anyone think there is any other reason for this?) is the height of contempt of court at the least and full scale barratry at worst--and it's a *crime*!
Furthermore, MS is a convicted monopoly--which makes the quashing competition part also very much illegal.
In short, MS is violating the law, has violated the law, and shows no regard for it as anything but a financial tool.
Now, think of it this way, corporations are given equivalent rights to people, but there are no equivalent punishments. There is no death penalty or even "life in prison".
MS needs either a corporate death penalty or a corporate "life in prison".
Finally, whilst I rant, let me address all of the people that say "we can't nail MS because of the economy". Let me remind you that a court shows no mercy to a murderer or theif because they're important. How many of you that say MS should deserve special treatment because of it's "central importance to business" were outraged when President Clinton was extended massive immunity and priviledge during the Lewinsky scandal? In short, MS is the powerful official, and you know what the industry has been sucking for the last 15 years. Law is law--and flagrant violations deserve strict punishments. No exceptions.
Not that I want the Windows source (you can keep it), but don't tell me opening Windows will destabilize "standards" either. Show me the massive destandardization that open source has caused. Look, standards are key to computing being viable. If corporations are allowed to force a standard to be vendor-limiting, then competition is impossible. Preventing that is at the heart of anti-trust law.
I think Mauve has the most RAM. --PHB (Dilbert Comic)
Microsoft can only restrict what you can do with the ideas if it involves patents they own or if it is unpublished, trade-secret information and you have an explicit contract with them. Neither of those applies in this case (they have some CIFS-related patents, but you can work around those).
Note that this is completely different from the GPL/LGPL. The GPL/LGPL is a license that gives you additional rights to the copyrighted material (the code) itself, rights that you wouldn't otherwise have. Microsoft is trying to take away rights to material that they don't have a copyright on based on fair use of their published, copyrighted material; sorry, but that just doesn't work. I'd love to see them try enforce this in court.
The DOCUMENTS are copyrighted. The FACTS are free. You cannot copyright the information in a phone book because all it contains is a list of facts. Many standards bodies charge for access to the docs, specifically building codes are often handled this way. And the copyright owner can sue someone who posts the building codes on a website. (Off the subject this is completely fucked up since it requires you to pay hundreds of dollars to find out the LAWS that you are required to comply with.) But they CANNOT sue someone who read a fact there and later used it. "How did you know you needed to space your joists 16 inches apart? You must have pirated that information, you're under arrest." There is no provision for this in our legal system. This second person did nothing illegal - they didn't violate copyright.
I never said a document that specifies a standard can't be copyrighted. In fact I specifically said the Microsoft's document IS copyrighted. But only the document, as it exists fixed in a tangible form, is copyrighted. They can limit access to it, they can charge for it, they can require someone to sign a contract to be able to see it. But they have no ability to limit the facts within the doc as long as the person making use of them didn't violate copyright to get them. They could reverse engineer the protocol and make something interoperable. MS's patents would still require licensing (which is messed up). But nothing in copyright or patent law limits access to the facts. Copyright only limits my ability to copy a document. The fact the protocol X makes use of some process Y is NOT copyrightable information. Process Y may be a patentable process, and MS can seek to control it that way, but they can't effectively hide the fact. You could do the same thing with the building code laws, build buildings with joists 15, 16, and 17 inches apart, etc. until the building inspector stopped telling you you failed, but it's a lot cheaper and thus more practical to do this with software.
Increasingly is for profs to scan documents looking for large chunks of text that match things they know have been going around. When it's just an idea, it's plagiarism. But if it's a large chunk of text (say 98% of a research paper) I think it might qualify as copyright violation.
The parent post by 1234567890zxcvbnm is a copy-and-paste from someone else's posting on April 5. Mod -1 Redundant please.
This post by was stolen complete with spelling mistakes from another user's post on April 5. Please mod -1, Redundant.
I don't know. It is an old article. And I just want my damn website to get listed on google. But whatever.
Your post is self-contradictory, primarily because you seem to have no understanding of derivative works under copyright law.
First, of course, you're wrong in stating that You cannot copyright the information in a phone book because all it contains is a list of facts.
Nowhere in copyright law is (or should) the distinction of whether or not the material is factual enter in to the picture. By your logic, only fiction would be protectable: clearly a ludicrous proposition. As a more practical reality check on my argument, I urge you to check the first few pages of your local phone books - you'll find that regardless of the fact that they're simply compilations of facts, they are indeed copyrighted, and such copyrights have been correctly upheld by the courts. (There have been some particularly interesting cases regarding yellow pages: not surprising, since that's where the money is in that business.)
Using the facts from a Microsoft specification document (patent considerations aside) may or may not be infringing, depending, as I understand it, on whether or not "a reasonable man" would conclude that the new work was in fact "derived" from the original MS work. In that case, it would infringe the MS copyright, regardless of what new form it is cast into. (So simply restating the MS information in a new form would still result in an infringing document.) If it was so different as to not be seen as clearly derivative, then it might be judged non-infringing. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to go to court. (That's not necessarily a bad thing, either: we do not want the law to attempt to speculatively handle all possible eventualities.)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Why do you think you get several phone books? Because they can't copyright a list of publicly available facts, if you could, you would only get one phone book. It's the PUBLICLY available part that's important, not the fact that they're facts. While a printing of that book is copyrighted, that copyright DOES NOT stop someone else from compiling a similar (even EXACTLY similar) list of numbers themselves and printing their own phone book.
Sorry, I probably worded that wrong. You can copyright your list of facts, but you can't use that copyright to argue that someone else MUST have abused your copyright when the facts themselves can be derived from publicly available sources. No one owns the periodic table.
Microsoft by publishing a standard is putting something in public. You don't need to read their docs to start interacting with the system. And by reverse engineering the implementation, you can then publish your OWN documentation of that standard, even if the facts match the facts in MS's document. THIS IS NOT A DERIVATIVE WORK!!!! It IS an original work of authorship, drawn from publicly available facts and is itself entitled to the same copyright protections as MS's documents. Two phone books, mostly the same list of facts. Two copyrights - that don't interfere with each other. MS's contract can't prevent someone from doing the same with their standard. If someone will do so is open of course, but it is legally permissible. And given the open source environment, it will probably be done.
As a part of the anti-trust settlement, the DOJ is requiring other companies to give MS free use of their patents? Can you explain that?
I would ask you directly but you're an anonymous coward.