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
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.
- adam
the day of the obvious today?
sic transit gloria mundi
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".
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.
Unfortunately this is a way of competing. Microsoft has chosen to take the Toyna Harding approach.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Mozilla is licenced under the Netscape Public Licence, not the GPL.
This sig intentionally left blank.
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.
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.
What are you just fucking insane? How does implementing a protocol change that protocol itself?
sic transit gloria mundi
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
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.
Personally I think it's hypocritical to defend the provisions of the GPL and at the same time attack the provisions of the Microsoft license.
Didn't Linus say something like "He who writes the code get's to choose the license?"
Actually, what's special about the GPL is not the no-cost aspect (which many non-free licenses share, including some Micro$oft EULAs), but that it gives you rights instead of taking them away. The only requirement (i.e. "the deal") is that you in turn must pass on these rights.
Free beer is easy to get from any beverages company on a marketing run.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
All reimplementations of this then will be released under a different license that is an exact copy of GPL, plus an additional clause that Microsoft or any entity that is owned by Microsoft is prohibited from using it. Technically it will be perfectly ok under Microsoft's license -- it's not GPL at all, it's not even compatible with GPL.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Of course. Think about it: just for one example, what if someone sat down one evening and seriously made Outlook Express secure? BILLIONS of dollars in repair costs saved worldwide. Driver support extended to other OSs, as well - offering more choices. WINE would begin to kick ass. Possibly offer MUCH better network transparency in Windows more akin to that in *nix. Improved security in Windows so it won't have stupid holes like raw socket access to anything that wants it. Improved compatibility with Windows protocols in *nixs. NTFS support in *nix that's safe. *nix bootloaders like GRUB able to boot NT, 9x, even DOS "kernels" directly instead of relaying through native loaders. The possibilities are limitless. And, there are sure as hell a ton of programmers out there who are Win-only for whatever inane reason who'd have a lot of interest in, at the very least, seeing how M$ implements higher-level API functions, for example. All in all, open Windows source would result in massive improvements in both Windows and *nix. M$ won't be able to make money off of it using the same business model they currently rely upon (pay per license or face rabid lawyers) however, and as a result it'd never happen.
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.
...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.
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?
This is a very astute comment (IMHO). The real reason behind this is to raise FUD in the minds of vendors looking at Samba on Linux as an alternative to Microsoft's server appliance kit.
Doesn't matter if it's legal or if the patent claims are valid. It's to get the CEO's of appliance companies to go into their engineering dept. and say "see, we should have licensed from Microsoft to be *safe*".
It's all about the dollars and control of the vendors........
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
This can be expanded to say "He who owns the code decides who sees it".
This is starting to look more like the hardline GPL supporters and Microsoft Executives lining up to take pot shots at each other.
Now I am not much of an expert on GPL licencing, however I am under the assumption that GPL is not an actual organisation. The problem is that Microsoft are starting to see that some of the GPL products are becoming a real threat (to Microsoft).
What context that the word "threat" is in is not entirely clear. But essentially going after a bunch of individuals to stop them from developing certain projects, which can affect the "bottom line" for Microsoft in many different ways.
I have seen one instance where a former employer of mine had a "client-server" program in the field. Someone went to the trouble of reverse engineering it. The effort was to write a Linux version of the program. However when this was done it revealed that there were some mistakes made when parts were added to the overall system in it's second generation. These "flaws" were identified and the program code itself was put out under GPL. This caused some pain, but overall the damage was minimalised.
The same thing happened with Microsoft and SAMBA. To the point where Microsoft technicians and the SAMBA people talk regularly. They also get stuck into each other on a regular basis. Many flaws with the SMB version 1 operation within many platforms were identified through the development of SAMBA.
With the recent changes in laws in the US, it is now harder for the SAMBA crowd to do what they normally do. This recent addition it makes it harder for the SAMBA people to do anything, without breaking some recent addition in the DCMA in relation to the latest releases of the Microsoft SMB protocol.
The side effects are enourmous, however Microsoft have recently been taking a lot of heat, and in an effort to keep what it is that they have, they are attacking the "opposition" any way that they can. Guess what, Netscape are not Microsoft's main competition anymore. However this recent act only takes care of part of their "problem" with their "opposition" as a whole.
It does not affect all of the projects that cannot be identified as part of the "non commercial" arena.
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
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
Or more open systems - the world doesn't end with GPL and LGPL you know. Plus kinda seems to go against the whole idea of "free" software.
sic transit gloria mundi
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.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
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?
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?
Samba isn't something that Linux needs, it's something that Linux needs when working in a Windows environment.
sic transit gloria mundi
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"
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
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?
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
It is simply a software license that imposes contractual conditions on the use of software.
No. The GPL is a permission statement. It is not a contract. It gives you generous permissions regarding the work, while taking away zero of your pre-existing rights. There is nothing you need to agree to in order to use, modify or distribute the work. Just follow standard copyright law to the letter, and the conditions placed upon the permissions.
Neither are the MS licenses contractual agreements. You have the legal right to not agree to them, and still use the software. This is because you legally aquired the right to use the software at the time of purchase, which preceeded the time you encountered the license.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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?
No, what the GPL says is that you can sell your shirts to anyone, but if anyone asks for it, you must give them the pattern for the shirt, so that they can alter the basic shirt to suit themselves.
It's doesn't really work for shirts. Let's say we have GPL Ale. Each bottle should have the recipe for making the ale on the label so that a) people who buy your ale can make more for themselves if they want and b) people can clearly see what's in your Ale. If people make more Ale from your recipe, then they're obliged to put the recipe (and any changes they've made to it) on the bottle *if* they sell their own GPL'd Ale.
dave
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.
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
I hate both so I use WindowMaker, there's also at least a dozen others, all better than KDE/Gnome's Windows-alike approach.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
There's an easy way to get around this - get a Saudi Arabian coder to read Microsoft's "secret" documents and implement them(under Sharia law IP laws are unIslamic and therefore don't apply). Microshaft is based in Redmond, so they have to follow US law more or less worldwide. But some OSS coder in Pakistan is untouchable. Of course if the CIA implants the right politicians like Karzai in Afghanistan then we could see worldwide IP laws in which case Microshaft IS the law.
It's a sad day when OSS coders must use the same tactics as binLaden to evade the law :-(
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
- 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:
> Entering into a contract requires, well, that you enter into a contract.
The GPL says you aren't required to agree to the license, but if you don't, you aren't allowed to copy GPL'd software.
The Microsoft agreement says you don't have to agree to it, but if you don't, you have no license to use their patents - which, they claim, any CIFS implementation necessarily will.
So, if the patents really are essential to the implementation and are valid (and even if they aren't, can you afford to fight Microsoft to prove it in court?), and you are somewhere US software patents have any validity, they _can_ impose conditions on implementations.
rant
Yaaaaay, let's 'fight' Microsoft's proprietary evils by taking the GPL and adding ways to restrict people from using code under it. Holy fucking unclear on the concept, Batman!
That is a totally unfree provision.
And it's totally unnecessary- because if such an OS in any way limits the total freedom of a GPL user (such as forbidding the user to copy any programs or some such nonsense) then the GPL itself ALREADY shuts off in protest. If anything restricts you in such a way that your freedom under the GPL to redistribute conflicts with other demands placed on you, you are not allowed to redistribute under the GPL! So if any system was truly closed enough to present a problem, and restricts users that seriously, it automatically terminates their rights under the GPL, which are all-or-nothing.
Just forget your idea for extra terms- for one, unless you're the original author, you have no right to add that to someone else's code and restrict their users against their will... and for two, even if you are the original author you're no lawyer and should not be trying to play one on Slashdot.
The GPL just as it is has inspired not only fear but also imitation from Microsoft. Don't even think about weakening it now, now that it's obviously revealing its true strength.
The GPL propagates ability to redistribute and to get full access to source at all costs.
Microsoft's recent licensing propagates admissions that the developer agreeing to the license has seen Microsoft IP, admissions that the developer does not have rights to the Microsoft IP, and furthermore a legal waiver of patents and IP the developer may be holding in self-defense.
Bit of a difference there! But the core concept is the 'viral' propagation of legally binding points.
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...
... 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.
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;
...Samba on Linux as an alternative to Microsoft's server appliance kit.
;-)
I think you meant the Microsoft Server Compliance Kit.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Anyway the point I was trying to make is that this is the first new anti-Free strategy we've seen from Microsoft since FUD attacks failed so badly over the last few years. The standard Microsoft plays (FUD, buy the competitor, lock out competitor using, bankrupt, embrace-and-extend) just don't work with Free software. If this seems to knock the Free Software movement back a bit, expect to see them trying this strategy in more and more areas. Expect to see them pushing for more vigorous legal enforcement of patents, and more swingeing damages on losers in patent law-suits. Expect them to make an example of either (a) a Free software project, (b) distributors of such Free software - Red Hat, SuSE etc ; or (most likely, cos it's the most frightening to their customer base) of the USERS of such software. For example, suppose .NET server phones home when it detects a non-licensed CIFS client attempting to connect, then Microsoft automatically send out nastygrams to the users. A PHB who gets a legal threat from Microsoft would probably achieve a vertical take-off with the force with which they would shit themselves.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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"?
In the UK, at least, a contract is not considered valid unless there it includes a Consideration. That is, money must change hands. A click-though license on a text document is SURELY unenforceable?
But of course, who wants to be the first to find out? Not me... once again, "Posession of Sacks of Money" trumps "Being Right" in the way our society decides who is right, and who is wrong.
(O/T)
Sometimes I think it's time to start a mass civil disobedience campaign around all these IP issues: fair use, the DMCA, CDPTMA(??), software patents, etc. Let's have a damn big rally on a single weekend, let's plan it 9 months in advance (say: summer of 2002), organise properly, make sure it's in as many countries as possible, that there's good PR, that we all chivvy all our geek mates to come along, stick flyposters and stickers and badges and grafitti for it all over the place...
"Hackers for Freedom", anybody? Nah, I'm dreaming aren't I... *sigh*
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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.
But I'm confused.
It sounds like Microsoft only has a problem with their IP being used in GPL licensed software.
Samba could be relicensed under the BSD, and there would be no issues. So you can't claim that the Samba developers have been harmed.
I also don't think you can claim that this is because GPL software offers a threat. Apache is not licensed under the GPL, and yet it is probably one of the few open source projects that has much marketshare compared to Microsoft products.
Seems to me like the issues here are a bit deeper, and I find it disappointing that nobody is addressing them.
..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
No, you're not blind.
It means that the interfaces needed for write such a thing (NFS client for Windows 2000) are not documented freely by Microsoft.
You're heard of hidden API's in Windows ? This is the perfect example of one (the interface to the client redirector code).
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team
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.
I don't anticipate the Samba developers relicensing their software though. Although large projects have shown that it is feasible, I think the Samba developers have a healthy respect for the protections that they get from GPL and will not happily give them up. Otherwise Microsoft could very easily add a new extension to SMB, and release a similarly configured extension for Samba, available in binary form only, and quickly take over control of the project.
Windows also incorporates the BSD TCP/IP stack, but I for one haven't noticed any contributions from Redmond being returned to BSD in exchange for their work. Nor can you take the BSD stack and compile it for windows without Microsoft's changes. So open source is completely useless when licensed BSD-style for users of Windows. Want to play with IPv6? Want to implement IP Masquerading? Want implement filters and firewalls? Want to implement IPIP encapsulation? Sorry, you'll have to use another OS even though the Windows stack came from Open Source.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
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.
Only a specific implementation of the TCP/IP stack is covered by the GPL.
Other implementations are not. For instance the BSD implementation, which in fact the GPL implementation is a copy of (at least parts of it). If what you were saying is true, the mere existence of Linux would mean that BSD (and Windows) instantly changed to the GPL. Obviously not true.
Patents can do scary things like this, which is why everybody here hates them. The GPL is nothing different than any NDA or other agreement that MicroSoft cooks up and is usually considered harmless.
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.
That would be great if the Free Software community was about withholding...
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."
What do you mean this is unenforceable? The Open Source developers who might read the code and be influenced by it would go on to develop an application that is Open Source, hence Open Source developer, and if Microsoft finds, in the source code of that person's program, code that resembles their own, they can go to court or do whatever the license entitles them to do. Sure it's stupid, but it's also genius, in an evil sort of way.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
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.
It's interesting how you don't think the Samba developers ought to relicense their code, but yet you feel completely justified in demanding Microsoft relicense their code. Do you see the disparity there? Obviously Microsoft also has a healthy respect for their EULA and will not happily give them up as the same fear of Samba taking over their market is true as well.
Anyway, I just think it's interesting how your selfishness is a one way street, and yet you complain about Microsoft behaving similarly again in your second paragraph.
A large part of the concept behind the BSD especially in use with University created research is to help promote it as a standard reference implementation. Said implementation done using the GPL would be completely unusable. As far as Microsoft's contribution back... that's pretty obvious from reading various RFCs and the fact that their products are available on the market place.
Remember, not everybody is as selfish as yourself and doesn't expect something for nothing.
The funny thing is, I think, that will be _still_ compliant.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The problem is, what they are using in a transaction, isn't their in the first place -- not ethically at least. It's a protocol that found its way in multiple standards and implementation, and they encouraged it. They also used a shitload of others' ideas and software (ex: kerberos) and touted compatibility and compliance, so it's only natural to demand from them to keep their part of the bargain, comply with the definition of "openness" that exists in the world outside their company because this is what they exploit in the first place. This is why we have to find a way around their "transaction" that will keep open things open no matter how "legal" they made their restrictions look. If the only way to accomplish that would be assassination of Gates and Ballmer, I would advocate that, but fortunately this is not the case, and there are better (and certainly more legal) means at our disposal.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Secondly, what you call selfishness, I call loyalty to my community. You may not like to believe that there is a community of open source developers, but they exist none the less. My personal gain or loss has very little to do with it. The gain or loss of my friends, and how the community could or will be hurt by Microsoft's actions was the subject of my post.
It is a part of the nature of a competition that I would prefer that we win, and they lose. I haven't claimed any impartiality, nor do I particularly want to. And you are incorrect in characterizing me (and by inference my friends) as wanting 'something for nothing'. I want something for something, and I have and will continue to put my own sweat into getting it.
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
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.
>Hey idiot, trademarks don't stop other people
>from using a word
Not just using a word, but using a trademark of a competitor in your sales contract, worded in such
a way as to imply unfitness of the competitors' product?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.