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

Problem number one...

[killthiskid]

Well, I started to read the license, but then I got caught at part one of step one:

Authenticate with a Microsoft Passport.

Well, I guess I'm out...

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.

Re:Problem number one...

[WEFUNK]

If you decide to continue anyways the next page begins:

Microsoft Communications Protocol Program
NDA Request Form Instructions

The first step in the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program is to obtain and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). To request an NDA, click on the link below and complete the request form... to facilitate confirmation of your request and avoid possible delays, it is important to use a Passport account with a verified e-mail address from a domain used by your company. Requests submitted using e-mail addresses from unrestricted or anonymous email domains (e.g., Hotmail) will not be handled without direct contact and verification from the company involved.

...and I thought my Hotmail account was my Passport. Well lets try anyway...

If you keep on going, logging in with your Passport you'll probably hit this page:

Microsoft Communications Protocol Program
NDA Request -- Passport Configuration

Which basically asks you to set up your Passport account to share your personal (although probably inaccurate) information with all Passport Services before you can even get to the protocol NDA request page...

Ummm, No thanks.

Difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Neonapster is not a rippoff of cdex...its a gnutellla filesharing app....its NeoAudio thats the Cdex ripoff...i recommend cdex to anyone ripping cds, ive used it for year and its great

The source code isn't new

[spectral]

The source code [for NeoNapster's softwares] has been at that exact same link since the story first hit slashdot front page. It's just some people are too quick to yell about violations, and not check what's actually going on. So yeah, it's good a "front page" story cleared up the issue, but it shouldn't make it sound like they just changed it, since it's been there the entire time.

Comments at download.com

[Mr. PJR]

Those of you who registered your disgust with NeoAudio at download.com might want to take a look at the comments page--every commment prior to 7 August has been deleted. Magically their rating seems to have jumped. go figure http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10137006.html

whats the news with MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I looked at their protocols that they're "opening" - nothing earth shuttering.. USB, FireWire, IPv6 and stuff like that are already available and running well under Linux and other open source OS's...

I don't see anywhere that MS gives the Exchange protocol for example, so whats the point?

Also- regarding LWN, most of the donations have been bounced back due to some stupid company thinking, so PLEASE re-send them your donations by other ways (PayPal etc..)

Re:whats the news with MS

[Archfeld]

well this is BS, we can't pay with a credit card but we can happily finance F'n paypal. Sorry LWN guess you aren't getting a donation.I refuse to use paypal, after thye locked my account for 5 weeks because of a paperwork error and their side. They refused to even respond until they finished their internal investigation, in the meantime they held my money, the purchase I was trying to make went south and the one of a kind item was sold, and then PAYPAL admitted their mistake and gave me my money back with out even so much as an apology.

PAY PAL is run by idiots who make a buck freezing accounts with NO recourse.

Some key points - cliffnotes for monopoly abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Using fair use rights to quote and snip sections of the Microsoft faq...

"...Microsoft will make available, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any communications protocol implemented in a Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP or successor desktop operating system that is used to interoperate or communicate natively with a Microsoft server operating system..."

"...Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program will make available for license by others, on a royalty basis, more than 100 proprietary protocols that were not previously available. These protocols can be used, in accordance with the license and payment agreement terms, to develop a broad range of server software products that use the protocols solely to interoperate or communicate with the covered Windows client operating systems..."

"... Consistent with industry practice, licensees of these protocols are required to protect Microsoft's intellectual property appropriately and are further obligated to pay specified royalties for the use of the licensed communications protocols and associated intellectual property..."

"...Third parties that want to license protocol information related to authentication and digital rights management must also pass an entry requirement related to their ability to reliably and responsibly maintain the security of this information and integrity of such systems..."

and finally...

"...Five years, but a licensee may also sign up to a new license at any point up until the end of the consent decree - which has a five year term. Throughout the term of the consent decree we will continue to make the covered protocols available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms..."

CDex author warns of using NeoAudio

[Istealmymusic]

cdex.n3.net has been updated with a message from Alber L Faber:

There is an application called NeoAudio, which is a straight CDex rip off. They changed some string (i.e. replace CDex with NeoAudio), changed the logo and added some nice SpyWare and Adware. I contacted Richard M. Stallman about this issue, but unfortunately I can not do much about it, except for the fact that they are removing/changing copyright strings which they should not. So please do not download and install NeoAudio (they probably make quite a few dollars by shipping the adware) and also advice other people NOT to download NeoAudio either, and warn innocent users not to download this application but download CDex instead.

In addition there is a small but worthwhile discussion over at Freedb. Some Slashdotters have missed the fact that Mr. Faber does not claim NeoAudio violates the license, he is merely suggesting potential users make informed decisions on whether to use CDex or NeoAudio. Logically, there is no reason to use NeoAudio -- it offers no improvements over CDex.

Of course, there's always Exact Audio Copy, which has proved itself in the mp3 scene as the de-facto standard for ripping.

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.

Not deleted. Still There.

[----]

Technically, the product was 'updated'.

You can still access the old comments thru this url. http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html?ob =0&pn=1&fb=2 (378 comments strong)

And if you click on the 'NeoAudio' link in the bar labelled "CNET > Downloads > Windows > Audio > Rippers & Encoders > NeoAudio > User Opinions" you will see this 'update' message.

Once you do this, you will be brought to the new comments section for the updated neoaudio. Which resides on http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10137006.html?ob =0&pn=1&fb=0 (at 32 comments and increasing)

This makes me curious. Can an author of a product on download.com simply erase a ton of bad publicity on it's own by simply releasing minor point releases every couple of days ?

Why must you register as a company?

[0xA]

Why do you have to sign up for the NDA request on the Microsoft stuff as a company? They even want the Dunn & Bradstreet number!

I can't, as a nice person looking to learn about whatever protocol, go and get a copy of the source. Why the hell not? Probably never occured to the bastards that a student or hobby programmer would be interested.

How am I going to become a good coder if I don't have any good code to learn from!

This absolutely stinks!

[ninewands]

Let me see if I understand this correctly ...

I have to agree to the license terms and pay a fee to get the source.

I also have to provide MS with a Dunn & Bradstreet ID number to prove that I'm really a company.

I have to authenticate all my requests via Passport, thus I am required to provide Microsoft all kinds of personal information AND give them permission to use it in any way they see fit.

Finally ... I have to agree to an NDA that I can't read until I receive it, and which PROBABLY, having read Microsoft's various legal docs before, prohibits disclosure not only of the code, but also the terms of the license agreement, before I even get to decide whether I agree to the terms of the license or not.

Thanks Microsoft. You've just done the non-settling states job for them. You have conclusively proven the need for more stringent antitrust penalties against yourself.

I WILL be filing my comments with the DOJ later this morning.

Microsoft...

[edgrale]

Has anyone else noticed that you cannot authenticate with Passport if you are using Mozilla!
I get the following error with Mozilla 1.0

Browser Not Supported
Microsoft® .NET Passport no longer supports the Web browser version you are using. Please upgrade to a current Web browser, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer version 4.0 or later, or Netscape Navigator version 4.08 or later.

It used to work just fine, oh well... guess they don't think that Mozilla is worth supporting.