Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized
Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team."
microsoft finds a way to keep closed even when told to open up
..... only to certain [*wink* *wink*] customers"
RIGHT .... SURE ......
is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the whole "we are going to release our source
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Interesting factoid:
Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel quoted in the article, went to law school with a co-worker of mine in Seattle. He interned at Micro$oft during his summers there. I wonder if there were any legal hijinks going on there.
As you probably know, it's illegal for any corporate lawyer to make disparaging remarks about competition, as he'll usually get slapped with a charge of contempt immediately.
Just one person, company, etc. to go through the process then illegally release it to the world. NDA be damned!
" But even with the settlement, software firms say Microsoft still isn't making it easy to see the protocols. In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information. "
Someone needs to take them back to court for this.. or try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do. This interpretation of the "settlement" is just absurd. And what a slap in the face of the rest of the world.. making you use friggin MICROSOFT PASSPORT to gain access.
And "request" forms? Have they denied anybody the forms? Are they allowed to deny forms? Great. They're going to be nice and slow..and selective..
Un friggin believable. I can't believe they're just getting away with all of this.
...?
So they are requiring an NDA and charging for the right to use the 'communications protocols'. There is no where in the proposed settlement that states they have to make their code "Open Source" is there?
Just because something isn't GNU doesn't make it illegal.
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
Anyone know the terms of release (if any) of such information, as noted by the courts?
# Erik
I'm not sure Microsoft understands the whole point of releasing specs to the public is so that the information will become undisclosed....
I being a big windows fan for many years am slowly trying to learn redhat linux with a very slow learning curve, I find this statement to be a little off, "It has done nothing to level the playing field," said Mark Webbink, general counsel for Red Hat, which sells a version of the Linux operating system that competes with Microsoft's Windows. I have done an install of Windows and an install of Redhat 7.2 and my modem still doesn't work under redhat 7.2, maybe I haven't worked hard enough to find how to correct the problem, but to me, if linux wants to level the field, they've got work to do, it shouldn't take me weeks to find something to make my laptop modem run under linux, which is still not working, windows had me up and going in no time without hassle of searching down a driver to get my modem to work. When they wanna level the field, make it so I can install linux, which was a pain in my ass compared to windows, and make it work right, right out of the box, like I did with windows.
I am going to sign up, use the passport ID, sign the NDA, and eat the cost of obtaining the information. BUT, here is my way out. I am gonna do all this with a stock out-of-the-box windows machine. I will pasword protect everything the way the average windows user does. I will keep the protocal info on my hard drive in a password protected folder a-la M$ regulations. I will of course connect the computer to a DSL modem, so I can use IE and passport, at which point my IP will become availible for all to see. It is a shame that I couldn't keep those malicous hackers out, as the operating system failed. But I used it just the way MS gave it to me.....
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
An NDA just to find out what you will need to pay to get information which should be free???!!
Every day I use Samba I feel better and better.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Since when does the GPL prevent monetary costs for obtaining information used? Last time I checked, the GPL even allowed programs licensed under it to have a cost associated. Of course, once someone has obtained the program they must also have [access to] the source code and the other various rights protected by the GPL, but that's only once they obtain the program in the first place.
Luke-Jr
While NDAs are normal in the industry and if they wernt forced to do it I would say this was fair. This just shows how incepid the settlement was it didn't level the playing field it didn't even start to it's a rubber stamp that says sure see were in compliance thus not abusing are monopoly powers.
Step 1
Seperate MS into there core groups OS, Office Apps, Games, Hardware (yes get the XBOX away fromt he game dev people)
Step 2
Dont let these guys talk to each other unless it's in a public space.
Step 3
Take excess cash sieze it and redistribute it as penalty phase.
No sir I dont like it.
It's not like the APIs are obfuscated or hidden.
Look at the protocols in question at
http://www.microsoft.com/legal/protocols/
Can the Samba developers really not work out what "RtlTimeToSecondsSince1970", for example, does without Microsoft explaining?
frig off! :D
Of course, this should surprise no-one. Nothing short of a radical break-up will cause this company to be one whit less arrogant---indeed, one can argue that since its primary duty is towards its shareholders, there is no incentive for Microsoft to change.
But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.
Never. I dont see how you would even think of such a thing.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
Microsoft is slick. No matter what they're asked to do, they somehow manages to get away with not doing
it. The whole DOJ trial was farcical. My best guess is that Microsoft made a deal with the government
on implementing government (*cough* NSA *cough*) spyware into Microsoft's products.
(BTW I said abusive because that was what was found, just having a monopoly isn't unlawful)
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, since:Damn.
Jouster
Basically, a commercial entity or entities (e.g. Sun, IBM) with an interest in promoting free software competition to Microsoft could finance an operation which would use the Microsoft specs to put together a compliance suite. Since a great deal of the effort in reverse-engineering protocols lies in making sure that your tests are complete, a black-box compliance suite -- even though not itself free -- would dramatically ease the process of reverse-engineering the specs themselves.
As a dandy side-effect, the suite would also show up where Microsoft doesn't comply with their own specs, which detail might be of interest to the public and the Court.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
What?! Hasn't M$ been through enough with the trials and antitrust judgements against them?
Now they actually have to start respecting the terms of the their settlement? I mean c'mon. How do you expect them to do any business?
From the article...
. In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.
No, you are not signing an NDA to see information about the protocols or any source code or anything.
You are being forced to use a proprietory authentication system controlled by the guilty party and have to sign a legal agreement just to find out how you can GET the information.!!!
And what do you think you will have to sign+pay to access the protocol information itself?
This is very, very wrong.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
I know myself as a WINE and ReactOS developer I dont even look at anything besides http://msdn.microsoft.com and am just waiting on the day for them to try and attach a EULA to that. The next thing they will try and do is go after WINE and Mingw for cloning the Win32 headers even though that information is covered under Fair Use.
.NETs Windows.Forms is still for the most part a portable Win32. Mabey the Mono project will have luck with Mono+WINE to reimplement Windows.Forms and we can really start moving people off of Windows once .NET apps are common.
More then EVER the FreeSoftware/Linux Nutz need to start supporting WINE/Mingw/ReactOS and Samba so we can compeate with M$ before they gain more control with DRM/Palladium.
I guess we should just be happy
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
That last part sounds more like a threat than anything reassuring.
The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Of course and it was M$'s choice to publish them as part of their settlement with the DOJ .... it's the throwing up of silly barriers to make those settlements meaningless that people are complaining about
In fact, the GPL explicitly allows payment, as you can confirm for yourself by walking into an Borders and buying a copy of Redhat or Mandrake.
The GPL does not prohibit payment, it prohibits *prohibiting* giving it away for free. A subtle difference that appears to be beyond the Post's writer. Said writer should expect to find a *very* full inbox tommorow.
KFG
The Slime will not share the secrets of their superficial SlimeWare. There attitude is: we ARE the law, and if you don't like that, the Slime Police will slip you away.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.
Sigs are bad for your health.
To summarize...
In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.
We're going to prevent this information from becoming usefull...
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler called the protocol process straightforward. He said nondisclosure agreements are common in the industry...
Everybody does this...
The protocols are vital for competitors since Windows runs on about 90 percent of desktop computers..
Of course... We are everybody!
Exactly how does the M$ NDA prevent this? First, it's hard to argue that nuclear power plant plans are a "trade secret." Not that it matters; it's easy enough for such information to be classified by the government (which is where that needs to happen if it's a national security issue like this). Finally, as everyone else has pointed out, M$ agreed to publish these particular "trade secrets" and is now using the NDA to avoid living up to their end of the agreement.
thats 41,203,203rd, dude
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
As you might have read in the article, 'The settlement allows Microsoft to charge for the communications protocols, but says they must be distributed "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."' Clearly making membership in Microsoft's Passport a requirement to view the protocols (not the source code!) is not reasonable.
In fact, they don't even let you see either the license agreement you will need to sign or the royalty rates you will need to pay until you comply with their demands.
In my opinion, the protocol (not the source code!) should have been made freely available, as comminication with a monopoly OS can only be done "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" in that way. Then an open source solution to interacting with those protocols could be developed. How could anything but free access be nondiscriminatory?
Hmmm, sorta like the silly suits against M$ that use up taxpayer dollars and court time. Which, in the end, will have done nothing for anybody other than spend a lot of dollars that could have been spent on other more important things.
Signus X-1
Or am I wrong?
I think you are wrong - and here is why:
*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
so that a person can then code a binary file that will do what the samba team wants and there is no violation of the Licence or NDA.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Kind of off topic I know but you will get the reply message here and respond quicker then if I email you.
Sorry dude but the Samba license is hurting competition and isnt what I would call "Open" by your standard. If we want to try and reimplement parts of Samba in WINE the GPL takes over and someone cant make a closed source app based on Winelib. In the long run this is going to hurt WINE because SMB support will have to be clean-room'd. This bothers me because that time spend/wasted because of the license could be better used to focus on Mono/Windows.Forms, Mingw, WINE or ReactOS. I dont suppose you guys would relicense BSD/X11 or LGPL?
For Linux and ReactOS the GPL license doesnt matter bacause the GPL allows closed source apps to run on a GPL kernel.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
That post isn't offtopic... if the moderator had bothered to read the story.
The story states that the GPL is a special license which prevents charging for the product. Which is of course, complete bullshit.
Someone should write the author but he doesn't put his email address on the story. Maybe just mail the editors of the website.
I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing.
Making it so hard to use a communication protocol doesn't really sound like a good business plan. Also, if history teaches us anything, it is that proprietary technology usually dosen't survive it's introduction into industry(right?), heck if Windows only ran on a specific hardware it would never have risen to power.
I guess what I am trying to get at is if new "M$ Secret Technology" is any good, then "the industry"(and I use that term loosely) will adopt a similar, but better, more open alternative (I hope).
Now there's a rare site, (Score:5 Troll) to the parent of the parent.
Bullshit stories? Fraudulent action? trying to divert attention from misdoings? sounds more like the Shrub administration than Iraq. At least their leader has some military experience, rather than avoiding a war by having his family protect him from service.
You can't say I'm trolling because it's TRUE!
EOM
This statement is flat wrong. There is nothing in the GPL which prohibits charging for GPL'ed software. The point of the GPL is that source must be made available for at-cost prices (postage, etc), and that source for any derivative product must be made similarly available. It only says that source must be made available at cost if the buyer asks for it. A lot of times, they don't ask. And a lot of times, they're willing to pay big $$ for a nice, installable binary distribution on CD. The GPL also says explicitly that "you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee". This is exactly what Red Hat does.
In summary, GPL is hardly the same as 'gratis'. It is, OTOH, a good try for 'libre'. Someone please beat these media guys with a cluestick.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
the whole point of that is true, but in this situation it isn't Microsoft on the outside trying to get in (with proprietary technology) but them on the inside, trying to keep their mediocre but industry-dominating tech a secret to everyone, when it would be in everyone's best interests if they just released the damn stuff... but Microsoft realizes that as their grip on their proprietary standards slips, so will their dominance on the PC industry and their expected profits.
Give em to good old Mikey, he'll read anything!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I can't help but write-off an article of facts that are new to me when the few facts I know about the story are wrong.
Can we believe anything in this story? On that site? No credibility.
It's not that technews lied, they just plain got it wrong.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. -- William James
In America, the elite enjoy a state of anarchy, while the average people must stop at roadblocks so their compliance to seat belt laws can be evaluated.
I click on the comments, for to see what all you insightful people have to say today. And I get one of the (occasional) ads that shows up between the text of the story & the comments.
It's for MS Visual Studio.net
*sigh*
MS doesn't like us! Momma, I wanna take my penguins and play wif someone else!
This is inexcusable.
Microsoft will be back in court again, with the same people who are to lazy to make a firm decision and to push it.
Ok, this is a bit offtopic, but meta, nonetheless.
Slash takes the most numerous moderation status (Insightful, Offtopic, Troll, etc) and displays that , as well as the total moderation points.
Voila, +5 Troll
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Heck, w/ how much the fed. gov't uses windows and Office products, M$ could probably shut the gov't down in seconds if they chose.
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
I thought the Borg were to efficient-minded to even consider masturbation. $Bill Daddy G, stop jerking us around.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
This is a deliberate slap in the face. The whole point of this trial was to give M$' competition a level playing field; but that isn't what's happening. Firstly, it can't possibly be a fair playing field if MS is allowed to charge fees for access to these "intra-OS communications protocols"; this gives MS an unfair advantage over their competitors as their competitors have to pay to use these protocols, but MS doesn't. Secondly, it is specifically designed at foiling Free Software developers who develop under the GPL. GPL'ed programs cannot include such code which contains crap like this in it. As Linux is MS' biggest competitor, this move is specifically designed to prevent the only real threat to MS -- Linux -- from competing on a level playing field. Even if there weren't any absurd restrictions and just a licensing fee, it would still be outrageous; Free Software developers, MS' only real competitors, can't afford to pay such fees.
This is just another reason why MS should have been split into many pieces. It should have been split horizontally (split the OS, applications, gaming, and hardware components) and vertically (split each of them up into several companies).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
yeah, like guns and explosives to kill some ppl. duh
Tee-hee, this is my favourite quote from the article:
Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.
If it was a Linux site I would be offended but it's comical to see such silly things in print. I'm sure RMS is squirming in his seat over this one, I just think it's good fun.
"Pssst! Bob! What does GPL stand for?"
'Uh... I think it's General Public License, dude...'
"Do something man. Right now."
Don't forget that a poorly set up Windows machine offers shares to the world. It doesn't take cracking, all it takes is a second party on the first party's local subnet to mount those shares, see the neat stuff without reading the NDA, and then publish it. It would be better if both parties were under 18, as someone else mentioned.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You missed the point. The Court says that these protocols are not to remain trade secrets, as that perpetuates Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
You are wrong. The Court hasn't said anything about these protocols. They are merely part of the proposed settlement which the court has not ruled upon yet.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"The settlement allows Microsoft to charge for the communications protocols, but says they must be distributed "on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms."
Well Jeez! That should be your first clue! When dealing with any kind of corporate giant you can NEVER use subjective words such as "reasonable." What Microsoft considers "reasonable" will most certainly be different from their competition.
Microsoft didn't get brought before the courts and convicted of its crimes by being "reasonable" so why believe that this corporation should be reasonable about ANY part of a settlement if given a choice???
It just amazes me.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
After all this is a proposed settlement. They are pushing the envelope to get things defined before they are actually defined. They can site common practice, or that it works for most of the interested parties or some other such lame thing in an attempt to get the court to believe that the non-settlement is, in fact, working.
The holy grail for them is compliance that allows to keep the playing field closed while appearing open. Sounds crazy and circular, but that really is what this entire thing is about.
Any combination of rules that stops short of a direct order can and will be exploited to their advantage. They have size and smarts enough to know that. For them this whole thing is just an annoying process that they must work through so they can get back to real business.
I propose that this works in a similar fashion to how the whole copy protection thing works today. If you can legislate it, they can exploit it. Hah!
Nothing will change unless clear and direct action with accountability is taken...
It's all a shell game, nothing to see, move on. (Sorry Jeremy, you are right, but have no real backing.)
Blogging because I can...
New Slashdot Target acquired. Target is running hybrid of Microsoft IIS and Linux with Apache servers. Reccomend: Target the IIS locations.
Target location: http://www.microsoft.com
Load handling estimate: Unknown
That's not how it works, idiot. It shows the most recent moderation category (troll in this case) assigned to the post, and then the total points. If someone uses Overated or Underated, it deducts or adds a point accordingly, but does not affect the moderation category assigned to the post.
I have to say thanks to the SAMBA team!
I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.
The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.
Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.
I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
..but the Windows NT machine guiding the missiles crashed due to a security hole. And nobody can tell us how to fix it without violating the DMCA. :)
"The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries..."
Since you raised that issue, here is a link to a draft of a book I wrote about the subject:
What should be the Response to Violence?
I'd be happy if we could just get the /. posters to spell neatly!
For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.
That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
From the article:
This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.
If the judge says "release it" he didn't say "release it under special and restrictive conditions" and in my opinion they are breaking the spirit of the judgement and should be hauled into court for contempt.
However, if the judge's orders are so vague that it allows for this crap, then perhaps it should be clarified. A request to the judge should be made citing this specific instance. I can't imagine a judge having his orders screwed with will take it all lightly and will probably render corrective orders more harshly.
By making it the same for everyone naturally ;)
Simple logic dictates that if *everyone* has to sign an NDA it is therefore non-discriminatory.
And I should have said 'Protocol' earlier, not 'code' my apologies.
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
By making it the same for everyone naturally A flat fee of $1M is the same for everybody, but it is still discriminatory. Can you see how?
"...Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment." Since when?
Read all of it. I have noticed that there are plenty of assholes here with lots of noise(just like in life), but more often then not somebody will actually correct it all. Fortunatly, most of these corrections make it to the 3-5 levels.
What they need is a Supreme Court with partisan judges appointed by political parties so that the election outcome can be decided for the people. That's how real democracies do it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The vote was a referendum on whether to hold an election. There's nothing inherently wrong with this scheme (although it seems unlikely to achive presumed goals of either saving tax dollars or decreasing campaigning) and it could be applied fairly in democratic countries.
Critics of Iraqi politics assert that voting "no" on the referendum is not a rational option and therefore it is not democratic. However most of the news stories about the referendum admit that the punishment for voting "no" is a rumour. These stories cite the previous referendum as being 99.96% in favour of Hussein, yet that suggests that 4 in every 10,000 people were willing to risk the consequences.
No Americans are willing to admit that it could be the Iraqis actually do think that voting "yes" is in their best long-term interests. This is because Hussein's government must be shown to be illegitimate so its soldiers do not have to be considered POWs.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.
I was going to give you my junkbuster blockfile entries but ran into some red tape. Not a quality experience.
Exactly. Last time (7 years ago), Saddam got 99.96% of the vote.500 People were arrested for voting "no" on the ballot. He gets "elected" every 7 years to a new term as president.
-nate
Actually Bush/Ashcroft. They will do what MS ask, so it is doubtful that we will get open protocols or for that matter a true settlement by our wonderful justice department.
Is this "News for Nerds" or is it some kind of tech legal watch? Jesus, if it's not DMCA, it's MS's legal ruling. If it's not those, it's something about the legality of GNU/whatever. What the fuck? Is there really so little going on that the same shit has to be re-hashed over and over?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know it goes against the flow here to defend Microsoft, but isn't it possible that there are valid reasons for most, if not all, of Microsoft's actions in this case?
For instance, what if the protocols in question include the DRM protocols for Windows Media Player? Said DRM protocols would almost have to be negotiated or licensed from a Content Management company, and that would cost money from Microsoft. In addition, the CM company might have required MS to agree to an NDA for the protection of the encryption/DRM scheme.
In that case, just as a for example, wouldn't it be prudent of MS to require an NDA to view its protocols? While that's not quite the same as an NDA to view the cost of the protocols, it is still a valid point.
Also, as Microsoft would then have had to pay licensing fees (and additional license fees for every copy of the DRM that is bought from them) doesn't it make sense for them to attempt to recoup these losses by passing that cost along to the licensees? I'm not saying that is what happened, but automatically assuming it's MS's evil doings is jumping to conclusions, isn't it?
-Terralthra...
Ok, I signed the NDA and I can now reveal that Microsoft wants $10K and pictures of a 15 year old boy in a bathing suit for access to this information. I challenge anyone from Microsoft to prove me wrong.
What I find interesting is that Microsoft's response is a rather flippant "This is standard practice in the industry." Unfortunately, M$ has been duped. They've gone and hired layers to head their legal strategy for big money, and those lawyers aren't even aware that when you're a monopoly, you're held to a HIGHER standard that the rest of the industry. What was the quote from Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility." It's a shame M$ chooses to follow the industry standards rather than set an example. What COWARDS!
The question is who. Does anywhere in any settlement state that Microsoft must make their protocols available for free so that opensource projects can use them? No. It states that it must be made available for competition to use. Sun can use it, as can IBM. They are competition. That is compliance.
Did you really think Microsoft would give their material away to gnuBrats? Do you really think the gnuBrats who use Samba are buying the necessary CALs to remain legal in interoperating in a Windows environment?
I'm not happy that Windows XP can only be installed on one PC. For $100.00 it ought to be like Windows 98 was, and allow me to put it on all my computers, and hard drives (I have a bunch of these sitting around), and keep on until I get tired of the OS.
I'd like to get XP, but I'll keep 98. If you try and install 98, you are shut out of the Microsoft Update site, so you can't get MSIE 6. I know how to upgrade MSIE 4.0 that comes with 98 to a newer version, so I can get into Windows Update. There is a trick to that;-). Also figured out how to use tomsrtbt linux to set up a big HDD for use on an older machine with no LBA in the CMOS. (Normally you'd get only 504MB) That being done, I put Windows 98 on the box, and "upgraded" it to MSIE 6.0. Very nice, really on older computers. Windows 98 blows away Redhat 6.1 on 586/32MB ram/25mhz bus
machines. Worth keeping 98! (XP would'nt run on these old boxes anyway.)
As I recall Samba was born from Andrew T's (I think it was him) tinkering with DEC's file sharing protocols and others had to convince him that they could actually see his shares from Windows. We know that DEC->Compaq->HP had a large hand in shaping SMB. NT screams VMS because it was written by the same folks!
Now just what is MS hiding behind "protected" IP? Imporvements they made to something written a long time ago by DEC, not Microsoft.
Wouldn't it be a trip if HP retroactively GPL'd their protocols (and perhaps VMS) thereby forcing Microsoft to return all improvements on their code to the public?
Named Pipes, NetBEUI, NetBIOS, none were Microsoft originals. Get IBM on board too. Retroactively GPL anything that Microsoft "assimilated" in the past.
In the mean time, what the state attorneys need to do is get HP's IP lawyers to challange Microsoft on their use of DEC protocols and challange the IP claim on the basis of prior art and/or infringement.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue. Even Microsoft understands they can sell GPL-covered software (as they have been doing for quite some time now). The GNU GPL (erroneously referred to as "the General Public License" above) does not "[bar] any payment"; it can be okay to sell Free Software including GNU GPL-covered software. In fact, in the essay I just linked to it is encouraged that one get as much money as one can for distributing Free Software.
One element that makes payment impossible for Free Software developers are licenses that require per-seat payments. When you have the freedom to share the software freely you can't keep track of who gets a copy. When you have the freedom to modify the software tracking systems built into the software can (and probably will) be removed. Free Software licenses grant you the freedoms to share and modify the software under that license.
Digital Citizen
Even cooler than the story, is the video in the advertisement! This is the first time that I have seen a full motion video with sound as a commercial in a news site.
Since Microsoft is charging a royalty fee to use the communications protocols, any open-source developer - those who contend that sharing software blueprints is the best way to build products - would not be able to use them. Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment.
This is not FUD. I've read a few posts that say it is, and I must admit it looked like it to me at first. This is really a good idea on Microsoft's part. If they want to keep any proprietory information away from free software developers all they need do is demand a royalty be paid on every distribution of a product that uses that information. Think about it. You want to download Xine with support for the new Windows Media Player format? Ok, Microsoft is more than willing to supply the Xine folks with the specification for the new format, but they demand a royalty on each distribution of Xine. So, you, the user, are required to pay a royalty, to Microsoft, for your copy of Xine. This is pretty standard for non-free-software right? Well the GPL will not permit the Xine folks to make this requirement of you!
Good show Microsoft, very evil.
How we know is more important than what we know.
and trolling/redundant is how malicious moderators get away with it. ;-)
And yes, I'm an AC right now since I don't need to lose anymore karma. I'm aiming for a 5 5s in a row.
BTW: Score +5|TROLL, HE WINS!!!!
The Washington Post article is not about criticizing settlement compliance, it's about criticism of the settlement.
Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized
is this really news? this happens almost every day here at slashdot. =P
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
I like the Rabbi.
The Samba team needs to get MS's source, and then make the protocol but close source it so we and ms can't view its code. I trust Samba.
but I just refreshed this article, and got an ad for MS Visual Studio .NET! For a second I thought I would die laughing....
Sig ?
don't fine MS a penny. just release ALL of thier works into completely open source free code and then we all have whatever they've built, they can then compete on those grounds.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Isnt it: "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."
Atleast thats what I found here
You misspelt 'loosers'.
Microsoft's douchebag scumbag worthless lawyers try to find loopholes in legal documents.
I hope all you dickheads who actually use their products get exactly what you deserve.
moderation: -5 drunk, +5 insightful
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He's the one who pulled back on the reigns once he got in office.
Since some writer (who knew better) had an idiot for an editor!
(found that tidbit on an earlier post)
MS were told to open the protocols to whomever wants to see them. They did EXACTLY what they've been told to do. You can come in tomorrow, sign the freakin' NDA, pay the freakin' fee and enjoy the bliss of opennes of protocols. IBM can do it. RH can do it. Even stinkin' Sun can do it. They have to pay, so what, developers don't work for free you know. Neither do testers and program managers.
Offtopic=3, Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=6.
As I post at +2, the Score is currently 0.
Back off, don't bother wasting you points, leave it at zero. It is a highly heated topic, and obviously people disagree about my posts worth.
I was about to comment on the fact that the post I replied to is at +4, but then I had a look at its moderation totals.
Offtopic=2, Flamebait=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=5, Overrated=2, Underrated=3, Total=14.
If you want to talk about the subject of my post, well, I don't hide my email address. I don't think it would help anyone to continue this here.
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
They don't have Oil !
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
It was probably just Slashdot effect. The link is working now.
That evil corporation consists of 20,000 monkeys knocking away at 20,000 keyboards, plus about 100 of the world's greatest con artists, who market crap as quality software, laugh in the face the law, and pull off God only knows what other crimes. And then, Billy Bob over there pretends he doesn't understand the meaning of the English word "concerned." In my opinion, that company should change its name to Mafiasoft and its mission statement should read, "We aspire to bring down the entire civilized world in a spectacular simultaneous crash of every technological device in existance while hoarding every piece of currency on the planet."
If they want IP protection, then they must disclose. Disclosure is the price of admission for IP protection.
If they claim that the information was stolen, then disclosed to third parties, *it doesn't matter* if the original disclosure was illegal: the information loses trade secret status, and the damages they are able to recover are *only* against the original discloser.
Only patents and copyrights provide IP protection for disclosed information.
-- Terry
"Seems like a waste..."
Yes. Kind of like "Bombing Al Qaeda Back To The Stone Age(tm)".
When we're done, those people will be living in caves!
Uh, what do you mean, "they are *already* living in caves"?
-- Terry
Seriously, aerial bombing campaign or not, the court's decisions do need to be enforced. Interoperability is essential for economic growth and since Microsoft has been the largest single obstacle to interoperability, you could say that it looks like Microsoft has been a factor in holding back eonomic growth.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
But, uh, who's more apt to look the other way when corporate evil-doers, well, do evil? Yep, someone had to say this as well.
GW Bush: So, this economy Karl, how are we going to fix it without
throwing any more of my good friends in the slammer?
Karl Rove: LOOK, IT"S SADDAM!
GW Bush: Where?? I don't see...
Karl Rove: South East Asia. Quick Bomb Him!
Can you see how you left out the word "reasonable"?
I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.
Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
It's spelled Microsoft, not Micro$oft, or Micro$haft or Mickeysoft. HTH
I have a question - how long will the world permit corporate America to deep throat its collective endeavors? How long will it smilingly swallow such ridiculous manipulative sophistry?
Recent events have revealed the achille's heel of corporate valuations is just such behavior - Arthur-Anderson was felled by a critical mass of lies it clung to... so how long before M$'s bullshit reservoir bursts?
I have a suggestion - keep shouting... and start kicking.
I am a crappy coder. So if I were to implement my own version of this protocol using M$'s documents, I'd make sure that my programs would speak in *very obvious* sentences to each other - implementing all protocols to the finest detail available. I'd even make sure that my code implemented various examples of different ways to do the same thing.
;)
So I'd probably end up making code generating network traffic that would be very easy to reverse engineer.
But I would not breach the NDA - you see, I'm just a crappy coder.
Microsoft has managed to survive many tough legal blows to date and, despite a criminal conviction, seemed like they would survive with a slap on the wrist. Part of it was some tough negotiations with a timid (or well-lobbied, perhaps) Justice Department and a few states, and part of it was a well-oiled "P.R." campaign to good cop the new judge. Part of that campaign was a supposed, "voluntary," implementation of the settlement.
Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.
It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.
For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.
I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.
Saddam is in South East Asia.
I've heard that push is bad with geography, but please...
Well Suprise, suprise suprise!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You still need to download Mozilla so you aren't using MSIE (I like Opera on Windows a lot, but last time I tried the Mac version it really wasn't so good,) and then we both need to figure out how to get openoffice.org to hurry up the OS X port...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I've never seen any community that's closer to a cult than the linux community. Be honest, if Father Linus told you to fly a plane in MS headquarters you'd do it, wouldn't you?
Could someone explain to me why all the software developers keep trying to reverse-engineer Microsofts proprietary solutions? Why not just create a new smb-like standard and a client-side installer for the Windows OS? This could be done so that the final solution is transparent to the end-user? I doubt people that use the computers really care about if they are using the smb protocol to access shares on their network or another protocol. Just release the sucker as a open protocoll free for all developers to use. Then developers could build on this protocol for user authentication and such. Guess your average dumb joe-user wont change and maybe keep using smb but those people are unlikely to mess around with samba solutions anyways so fuck em. Whats the reason this type of solution doesnt exist already and everybody is running after Microsofts shitty closed protocoll / NDA-enabled sucker solution?
The last time I checked, average joes worked for Microsoft.....bill gates himself was an average joe.
I would rather the government let Microsoft slide than to punish an average joe for being too successful...
I think the middle eastern states want some weapons equal to those of Israel. Israel is loaded with nukes, bio, and chem weapons. Note many of the middle eastern nations don't get along with Israel, and Israel regularly threatens them with violence. Some call this Terrorism but then that would make almost every nation a Terrorist nation, as basically every nation uses violence for means of political advantage.
Take Lebanon for example, Israel is currently threatening to attack their country because they want to steal more of Lebanon's water.
The problem is, as a nation you will continue to get bullied, until you get some weapons of your own.
The real question you should ask yourself is why it is ok for the USA and Israel to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, while it is not ok for Iraq.
Just try and pull up examples of "crimes against humanity" against Iraq, and the same can be done for both the USA and Irael.
So Saadam is smart enough to know how to play the game. It is not about him being bad as much as it is him trying to level the playing field. Building weapons of mass destruction is the only way to play with nations like the USA and Israel.
I am a USA citizen, and I try to be objective about these things. Assuming that "we are good, they are bad" will never solve anything. Politicians lie. The USA is spreading FUD with regards to Iraq. It should be quite obvious to you guys, I mean you are more intelligent than the herd.
So he's dug himself in with a windowless, underground bunker
;)
Windowless?!?!
Even he won't use it when his life depends on it
And how many terrorist actions has Iraq funded against the US in recent years?
Bush using the whole Al Qaeda thing to push his family's pet project -- bombing the shit out of Iraq -- when they could be spending the same dollars on our economy is inane.
Frankly, if there's one *good* way to generate people willing to die to hurt the US -- terrorists -- it's to keep bombing a country and killing someone's parents, brothers, sisters, and force them into poverty -- and then stay high overhead, in high-tech airplanes, so that your only recourse is to go after their civilians.
Let's be realistic. We are bombing Iraq because Bush and Bush Sr. are tremendous buddies of the oil companies, who took extreme exception to the invasion of Kuwait (which, to be fair, also would probably have driven up everyone's gas prices). It was an *economic* decision, not one made to save lives (lots of places in the world we could be doing that), and not one made to prevent terrorism (we've financed terrorist groups before, as long as they're aimed at someone else -- USSR, Central American governments -- at the time.)
May we never see th
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ is where you download the installer...that page even works with Mozilla. (Tried looking for a full-download installer instead of a network installer, but didn't see one.) For other Win98 updates, you might try http://www.microsoft.com/windows98/downloads/corpo rate.asp.
Then again, you really should be using Mozilla as your browser. As for updates, I only use Windows Update to see what updates need to be applied to my Win2K systems...and then use the knowledgebase numbers (Qxxxxxx) to manually download the updates. I save them to CD for future use, so that when Microsoft pulls the plug on Win2K, I'll still have all of the available updates for it. Since you want to keep using Win98, it'd be even more essential to squirrel away all the updates someplace. (Having this stuff on CD also keeps you from having to download a few hundred megs of patches every time you need to nuke-and-reinstall your system.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I'd agree with your views if they were expressed in English, but I'm damned if I care to be represented by some drooling imbecile who can't even cope with apostrophes. "Weather" is rain and sunshine. "WHETHER" IS A DIFFERENT WORD, YOU BRAINLESS ASSHOLE.
You're mentally retarded. Go hang out on Free Republic with the dittoheads, where your microscopic little brain will fit right in.
SHITHEAD...
Being allied to Israel has nothing to do with "linking" the US government to any religion. We're allied with Saudi Arabia, too, and they're a theocracy, period. Israel isn't a theocracy. Even leaving that aside, Gov. Pataki can say whatever he likes, and if it's not signed into law, it's not law. Pataki could go ahead and say, explicitly, what you're claiming he said: He could say, for example, that Hinduism or Anglicanism should be the state religion of the USA. Guess what? Some dumbass governor shooting his mouth off is not law. Read the Constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law...". It does not say "Governors shall not shoot their mouths off at press conferences." Those are two different things. Read the First Amendment too, while you're at it. We have freedom of speech in this country.
Moving right along: The JDL's offshoot in Israel, Kach, is illegal in Israel. That's because they're violent racist lunatics, and civilized nations don't tolerate that kind of thing. The JDL's support is microscopic, both in Israel and in the US, among Jews and everybody else. Why? Because they're violent racist lunatics. Compare that to the very strong support among Muslims for gangsters and serial killers like Hamas and PIJ (there's nothing else to call them. Hamas and PIJ are like the Mafia combined with the Ku Klux Klan, but even more senselessly violent than either). We both know the Qu'ran forbids the murder of civilians, and we both know that a hell of a lot of Muslims understand that and respect it -- but we also both how many there are who want to make some little exceptions here and there to accomodate their violent racist lunacy. That number is not "microscopic". I repeat: Israel banned Kach. The US government regards the JDL as a terrorist organization. When those JDL guys were arrested, they stayed in jail, where they belonged. Compare that to all the Muslim governents which openly support far more powerful terrorist organizations, or at best merely ignore them.
Even so, it would be idiotic to try to claim that Hamas represents all Muslims, just as it would be idiotic to try to claim that the Ku Klux Klan represents all Christians -- and just as it is ridiculous for you to try to claim that the JDL represents anybody but its own members and its exceedingly tiny circle of supporters.
But hey, I'm wasting my breath. You're not interested in the facts. You're interested in inventing excuses for your own racist lunacy, though you do at least appear not to be violent about it. As far as I'm concerned, you've got a perfect right to be a nut and to shoot your mouth off, unless you start murdering people. If that ever happens (and I'm not predicting that it will), you'll have to learn to accept the fact that they have a right to defend themselves, and quite possibly the means as well.
You might find Q305385 useful for checking and maintaining your system. Not built by Microsoft, but the database does appear to be maintained.
Q305385
Ian.
A physicist is an atom's way of thinking about atoms
Hmm, I wonder if this has anything to do with the way the government seems to be more and more about protecting personal and corporate wealth?
Have you been getting the feeling lately that you're always voting "against" some candidate, but seldom voting "for" someone? I can't remember, I really can't remember, the last time I voted for someone I thought has a snowball's chance of actually winning and thought they were likely to even try to do any real good. It's much more a matter of wow, she stinks... but that other guy is REALLY reprehensible!
The Same Old Shit party has its line and you idiots buy it - even though they never really seem to deliver and even though some of the things they support are really questionable and they do seem to be way in bed with the wealthy elite and the big corporate interests... but damnit, if those bozos on the other side get into power things'll REALLY go to shit!
Meanwhile you got your Different Day party and they talk a nice talk ad you idiots buy it... even though they never really seem to deliver and some of the things they support are really questionable and they do seem to be way in bed with the wealthy elite and the big corporate interests... but damnit, if those fascist SOSers get into power things'll REALLY go to shit!
And the balance swings hither and the balance swings yon, and you SOS cronies will tell you how that DD president was a damn crook but good old so and so, he's the best man we ever had at the helm, and the DD Elite will assure you that he was really a great President, but that SOS bastard, now that guy, ohmigod...
And you idiots buy it, and buy it, and buy it, and then complain about freedom and copyright law and Microsoft and on and on and on. Wake up. There is one party, and it's called the Status Quo party. It comes in two flavors to keep the idiots neatly divided but it has one simple plank in its platform: don't rock the boat, cause the gentlemen with the fat checkbooks like the way the boat is just fine. Do you? If not, maybe you should stop voting for guys that are taking handouts from the people that built the boat and set the sails. By the money, for the money, and of the money.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Visitors will wear small electronic pins, which will let the computers know who and where they are." He's got a hardware version of Passport in his house . . .
I am very definitely interested in the facts. I haven't had time to read your post completely. I will read it, however, and if there are changes I should make, I will make them.
Draft legislators from the pool of registered voters.
I don't suppose you'd let me avoid service by offering to pay a proxy to take my place?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The word "reasonable" does not appear in the message to which I responded. Check it out. Even if it had, MS appears to be at liberty to make their own definition of the word "reasonable", so I could see them setting a high dollar figure. I write programs myself, and a $100 charge would effectively lock me out, based on my hobby budget.
This can't be a coincidence. Yet another major Editorial by a senior Tech-Writer from an important country-wide newspaper, and Richard M. Stallman's Gnu Public License gets wrongly named.
A story from such a source which can't even get the names right? I guess they must be really afraid for this RMS dude.
Robert
But we aren't talking about Microsoft here are we? Because Microsoft haven't been charged with any crime have they? Because you know that the whole antitrust trial is a civil matter don't you? And you know the court doesn't have the power to impose a punishment, only a remedy, don't you?
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Can't fall under trade secrets either because once information is in the public domain it can no longer be a trade secret (common sense).
Female Prison Rape in NY
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Clayton Anti-Trust Act October 15, 1914
When did it stop being unlawful? .I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Thanks for the handy, irrellevant references.
The point is, that even though it can be a crime, Microsoft have not been charged with that offence. Instead civil proceedings were brought, for a civil offence also provided by the Sherman Act.
The differences? The civil offence is less serious, and doesn't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now you may wish that they had been charged with a criminal offence, but they weren't so it is not correct to call them criminals.
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
We are preparing to think about contemplating preliminary work on plans to
develop a schedule for producing the 10th Edition of the Unix Programmers
Manual.
-- Andrew Hume
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...
If just one piece of mail gets lost, well, they'll just think they forgot ...
to send it. But if *two* pieces of mail get lost, hell, they'll just think
the other guy hasn't gotten around to answering his mail. And if *fifty*
pieces of mail get lost, can you imagine it, if *fifty* pieces of mail get
lost, why they'll think someone *else* is broken! And if 1Gb of mail gets
lost, they'll just *know* that Arpa [ucbarpa.berkeley.edu] is down and
think it's a conspiracy to keep them from their God given right to receive
Net Mail
-- Casey Leedom
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...