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)."
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
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/
We (the Samba Team) don't think Samba infringes on these patents. We've looked at them.
The problem is it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what lawyers think of this.
We're currently getting a legal opinion on this and will post a more complete statement once we've done so.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
(a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form: The BSD license does require that.
The BSD license does not require this. Unlike the GPL license, the BSD license does not require the source code to be available for a piece of software licensed under it.
- Preston
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?
Note that if either (a), (b), OR (c) is true, then the license is an "IPR impairing license". Also, it is possible to sublicense some software in a way that would make it fall under the definition of an "IPR impairing license". In the main passage of the license text, it says:
So something like public domain software, which can be sublicensed as BSD, GPL etc. is out as well.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
That's the thing, BSD is _not_ allowed by this license. Read:
...Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License."
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions.
Distributing under a BSD or X11 license would necessarily "subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License." if said implementation were relicensed under the GPL.
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.
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?
WTF you mean "grapes don't grow there"?
:-)
There are at least 20 wineries within one hour's drive of my house, and at least 30 vinyards, and Okanagan wine has been cleaning up with gold medals at the world tasting events for a good five years or more. We grow grapes here, and damn fine grapes at that.
Ontario also has a thriving winery industry, though it's not nearly so good as BC's.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
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.