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
...?
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.
I'm not sure Microsoft understands the whole point of releasing specs to the public is so that the information will become undisclosed....
Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
Maybe Linux vendors could spend more time addressing these issues if they didn't have to spend so much of their efforts reverse-engineering MS "protocols" to make Linux attractive in enterprise environments?
This is like breaking up the Bell sys^H^H^H monopoly, but allowing them to keep the details of how to make connect a telephone under NDA.
(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.
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
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.
And who's to say that there isn't some errata regarding RtlTimeToSecondsSince1970 that shows that it is always, say, 10 seconds off. You wouldn't know it if you assumed the function did what it said, and you wouldn't know it if you weren't on some MS forum that tells you said errata. Of course, to obtain access to that errata means signing an agreement, etc etc etc.
So, yea, playing the assumption game is what makes interoperability so unpredictable. You write to the spec as it should be, and it magically doesn't work. You munge, you reverse engineer, you experiment.. You might get somewhere. That's the game the Samba team is playing, despite MS already having been to court and been told that the game is over..
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
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?
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)
API's are *not* protocols. I don't care what their API's are, I don't program under Win32.
Actually, an API is a protocol, it's just an internal one rather than an external one. After all, several *nix daemons operate by using network semantics to access local resources (a trivial example) and RPC goes the other direction.
I agree, though, that the Microsoft APIs, which aren't network transparent anyway, are uninteresting from an interoperation standpoint.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
As much as I think what MS is doins is wrong, I dont think that "get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do" will do you any good. One of the major problems with this country is too much leagelise, IMHO. People want everything enumerated out, to extream lengths. I understand why to a certain extent you would want things listed out(you need this to do this, you need that to do that...), but there is a certain point where this becomes counterproductive. Your listing everything out the way you want is just going to add to this problem. Also, once you start listing things out when are you goign to stop? And does that mean anything that is not listed does not matter? Finaly, that is not a game that I think you can win against MS. They have the money and the lawyers. If you want to get nit picky they will probably come out on top.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
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).
> Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.
So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Be even better if you had someone under 18 do it with out their parents knowing, because they couldn't be bound by the contract, and if you aren't bound by the contract you can't really break it....
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 may even get modded down, but we all know thsi is what will happen. And it only has to happen once and then the cat is let out of the bag. Sad that is has to come to that, but...
Wrong. What will happen is that Microsoft will claim that those Linux pirates stole the designs, and that all Open Source code is now tainted because the documents were made public illegally, and Samba will be shut down, ... It's better to continue reverse engineering things the legal way until the documents are made public.
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.
No, but it does state that anyone down the line is free to redistribute it without royaltys, does it not? So, SAMBA team might pay Microsoft for incorporating full access protocols into their software. But if RedHat, for instance, then takes Samba, maybe modifies it a bit, and incorporates it into their OS, they can't be forced to pay Microsoft again. And Dell, which sells PCs running RedHat, can't be forced to pay MS a royalty for each of these machines. This not what the article was saying, but the requirement for a royalty payment does bar use of these protocols in GPL'd software, from what I understand. To follow Microsoft's rules, SAMBA team would have to pay MS for every copy of SAMBA that was shipped, whether or not they actually distributed it. SAMBA team can force everyone who downloads software from them to pay, but can't force everyone who downloads it (legally) from somewhere else to pay as well.
So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
... or very little oil ...
Because they have lots of money?
Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
"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...
Microsoft would get some people to incorporate, sign up for their bullshit, and then they would parade it in front of the court.
Didn't you see the "I switched" and other PR blunders?
Karma: Food Fight (Mostly affected by Date Plate).
They have the money and the lawyers.
The best way to settle this all and the stupid shrink wrap license is this: Make anyone who SELLS closed source software liable for faults in their software that disrupt business, corrupt data, and lose revenue. You'll see Microsoft's cash pile drop like a rock.
-- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
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.
Quoth the DMCA (17 USC 1201f):
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
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.
If one has reason to believe the data were illegally obtained (nobody who has posted in this discussion can reasonably argue they didn't know Microsoft wanted these data kept secret), we have certain legal obligations to ensure that we aren't using stolen data.
Of course, property laws vary from state to state, so CWYLL (Check With Your Local Lawyer).
Jouster
Although software libre developers can't get access to Microsoft's specs or API source, it's quite possible to work around the problem...
That's not the point. The question is whether Microsoft is living up to their so-called voluntary compliance with the proposed DOS settlement.
Anyway, the Samba team know this protocol better than Microsoft does at this point, so there's no possible argument for making use of information Microsoft has not placed unambiguously in the public domain. That would just create an opportunity for Microsoft to attack the Samba project legally, which they would no doubt love to do.
This turn of events is worth far more in terms of demonstrating to Judge Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft is not now abiding by the terms of the DOJ settlement, and cannot be expected to in the future.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
It's better to continue reverse engineering things the legal way until the documents are made public.
So why not fight fire with fire? Microsoft has been perjuring itself under oath and illegally maintaining its illegal monopoly (yes both the act and the monopoly are illegal) for quite some time. Hell, who wouldn't be willing read and memorize their protocol specifications and swear under oath that they were reverse engineered, even if it was against Microsoft's (IMO illegal) license agreement.
moto411.com
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.
The API portions of the release are openly available to anyone without an NDA.
Wanna tell that to the Samba team?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
No. It's much simpler than that: Whenever MS pulls something like this, obviously circumventing the agreements, you simply require MS to openly publish the specs. Then you hold them accountable for that spec. Any changes and deviation must be published. Unpublished deviations, intentional or not, result in liability and law suits. Even MS will find a reasonable solution when faced with such a penalty.
Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)
Those are all related to illegal restraint of trade or illegal abuse of a monopoly (Sherman Act). The monopoly itself is not illegal, but leveraging it to prevent others from competing is.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
There isn't (in fact most public utilities are government-sanctioned monopolies) HOWEVER, it is illegal to use one monopoly to attempt to force the creation of another (bad wording, let me try again) You can't leverage one monopoly to create another.
Exactly my point. No monopoly in itself is illegal, it's what they choose to do with the monopoly (restraint of trade, leveraging the monopoly to gain another monopoly) that is illegal. Unfortunately, they don't have some sort of declaration of monopoly status before they can bring you up on trial for abuse of a monopoly, either.
(For example: if the Xbox wipes out Sony, Nintendo, et al Their US divisions could probably sue the crap out of Microsoft, because Microsoft used the profits from it's Windows monopoly to subsidize the Xbox, and are trying to force people who develop for windows and console to develop on Xbox (though not in those terms)(see EA's reaction to Xbox's licencing, for a much better explanation)(Though I seriously doubt Xbox will)
They could sue them, but I don't think they'd get anywhere in an antitrust case unless Microsoft really started using tactics similar to what they used with IE or Windows (getting vendors to not sell or understock PS2s and Gamecubes would be the rough equivalent).
Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)
There's a good chance that an Office monopoly was generated by leveraging existing product monopolies (Excel for instance), but it's not likely that it was generated by the Windows monopoly (though there are some things that showed they may have used Windows to bolster Office share and vice versa). They also have a very large share of the market for IDEs with Visual Studio (and/or it's components) in something like the 90% range.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
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