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"
(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.
Of course and it was M$'s choice to publish them as part of their settlement with the DOJ .... it's the throwing up of silly barriers to make those settlements meaningless that people are complaining about
Or am I wrong?
I think you are wrong - and here is why:
*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
As much as I think what MS is doins is wrong, I dont think that "get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ 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
> 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
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.
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!
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...
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.
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
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.)