Slashback: Picnic, Neonapster, Microsoft

Slashback tonight with some good news about Linux Weekly News, an annual update for interested picnic-goers, a followup on Neonapster, and a few words of caution on Microsoft's approach to code disclosure. Read on below for the details.

Look at the nice horse they left. babbage writes "As part of ongoing antitrust settlement arrangements, Microsoft has 'opened' the source code to some of their protocol implementation source code. Go ahead and read the license -- but do keep an eye on the NDA you have to agree to first. If you find an NDA to be an objectionable first step -- and I'll admit, I haven't read the license because I don't agree to the NDA terms -- then speak up about it. The Department of Justice is accepting public comments from industry professionals about the new licensing terms. There is a real concern that such pseudo-open licensing could effectively scuttle development efforts on projects like Samba & Mono, but we need to get open access to the license in order to figure out what the risks are. If you have anything to contribute, now is the time to speak up to the DOJ."

Bring your own herring. Bill Kendrick writes: "From the folks who brought you the immensely popular "Linux10" event, comes Picn*x11, a picnic/barbecue celebrating 11 years of the Linux operating system. It's going to be held in Sunnyvale again, the Saturday after LinuxWorld Expo. So go RSVP now, and get your Picn*x11 t-shirt! (Proceeds go to EFF)"

With enough eyeballs many programs seem shallow, too. TheMMaster writes "Neonapster seems to have GPL'd their software, you can download the source here, not that I am terribly happy with what happened, but at least this seems to have been settled out of court ;) of course... it is still a cheap cdex rip off ;)"

LWN is good reading. Keck writes "We all shed a tear for Linux Weekly News a little too soon maybe?

Yes, we know we said there would be no LWN.net Weekly Edition this time around, but, in the end, it was worth the trouble to put together a mini version. So here it is; with luck, the full Weekly will be back on August 15. "

Comments

Re:Problem number one...

[mabinogi]

That's not what that says at all...not even close.

All that passage means, is that if you tell everyone your password, and someone else uses that to login as you, then it's not Microsoft's fault.

Which is fair enough.

By saying that 'you' are 'responsible' for maintaing the confidentiality, they are saying that no one else is going to do it for you.

If it said you are 'required' to maintain the confidentiality, THEN it would be more like you said.

However, I haven't read the rest of the terms of use, so I don't know that there isn't a passage like that. But the example above definitely isn't one.

So?

[Clue4All]

I really don't get this. The exact same thing happened when Morpheus used Gnucleus as the basis for their new product. Much like MusicCity, NeoNapster isn't in violation of the GPL and offer source for their application as shown. Isn't "ripping off" (derivative works) what the GPL encourages? There shouldn't be a problem here, if the project doesn't like someone else using their code, then they SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THE GPL.

Re:Problem number one...

[mkettler]

I too know this is all a joke, however...

By the phrase "You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and account information." I don't believe Microsoft is requiring you to maintain confidentiality, but instead they are disclaiming any of their own responsibility if your password is disclosed. ie: if you give your password to someone else, don't blame us, we're not responsible.

Of course, other clauses probably give them the rights to shut down accounts which they realize have been comprimised. For security reasons, of course, MS clearly only wants to protect their users :)

It's also a bit amusing and twisted to realize that statement also means that if Microsoft is hacked and your password and account information are stolen, that's your problem, not Microsoft's. Clearly you should have been responsible enough to not give it to MS in the first place :) Or maybe you should have been responsible enough to fix their security problems yourself before your account information got disclosed :)

Microsoft: worse than before

[Andy Tai]

The "opening" of the protocols actually extends the power of Microsoft over third parties. Previously one can implement the protocols in a clean room manner and does not need to deal with Microsoft. Samba, for example, implemented CIFS on their own without depending on any help from Microsoft. Now if you sign on to this Microsoft program you essentially recognize Microsoft's claim of ownership over many protocols. You have to sign an NDA first, and then who knows what will be in the actual license agreement. The anti-GPL CIFS protocol license is a clear example of the kind of restrict licenses Microsoft can put out.

Standard protocols should not be owned. Now Microsoft is trying to use the settlement with the DOJ to actually extend its IP ownership to common protocols, beyond actual source code/implementations. Microsoft's power over third parties and the market actually increases, contrary to the original motivation beyond the anti-trust suit.

Has no one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but me noticed that the DOJ web page does NOT give an e-mail address to send letters to? They used e-mail to allow people to send letters the last time - they should do it this time.

Not sleazy...normal business.

[RomSteady]

If you buy a house, you get the house. If you want the blueprints to your house, they usually cost extra. You usually have to pay either the architect or the city planner for a copy. Having the blueprints allows you to build something with the same functionality, but having the blueprints isn't the same as having the functionality. You have to do something with the blueprints to make them useful.

And as you said...the functionality is already in Windows, and exposed through interfaces. If you are on Windows and just want to use the interfaces without knowing about the plumbing, you still can...just like you can use your front door without a schematic of the lock.

Re:Some key points - cliffnotes for monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to get the open source code one has to agree to a license. Fair. However, to obtain a license agreement, one needs to agree to an NDA and to get the NDA one needs a PassPort(TM) account - and oddly giving a HotMail(TM) address isn't sufficient.

So, to obtain this "open" source code, one has to agree to three ongoing licenses - one or more which will probably be perpetual and subject to change without notice. And loyal MSN(TM) users are excluded.

This is not open. This is not reasonable or non-discriminatory.