Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the definition-of-sharing-slightly-skewed dept.

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."

28 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. Typical. by 1lus10n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    microsoft finds a way to keep closed even when told to open up

    is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the whole "we are going to release our source ..... only to certain [*wink* *wink*] customers" RIGHT .... SURE ......

    --
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Typical. by meatpopcicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is wrong with the system?

      The government has no balls! Or should I say the justice department doesn't. Microsoft has been declared a monopoly. They have been convicted of crimes and bad business practices.

      What has been the outcome: absolutely nothing!

      The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries and people but when dealing with their own they can't do a damn thing.

      The convicted party has more rights than the victims (in this case everyone). This is wholly unfair!

      How many years has this been in the courts and microsoft isn't doing a damn thing to fix it. They fight and lie, and tie up the court system, and nothing comes of it. The justice department really needs to do something about this case.

      If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.

      This article just goes to show that nothing will come of this court case. It will have all been a big waste of everyones time and effort, everyone except microsofts that is.

      -the opinions expressed above are my own. As this is still a free country(I think) I am entitled to express my rights to free speech. If you don't agree with my comments, then don't; that is your right also.

      --
      "You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
    2. Re:Typical. by 1lus10n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries and people but when dealing with their own they can't do a damn thing. "

      actually what bothers me most is that they can but WONT do anything. which is what i think bothers alot of 'informed' americans. the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".

      take a poll. how many americans wanna be raped by the mega-corps ?
      and belive me this goes past micro$haft. as much as i hate them this is a much much bigger issue than just micro$haft.

      i mean think about it, how many people are employeed by the RIAA and MPAA combined ? how about in the US alone ? and Microsoft ? a good amount right ? how many americans are having their rights stripped away ? alot more than would profit from letting micro$haft continue thier prctices. or too continue ignoring the current practices of the **aa's.

      to put it simple - the american gov't is letting americans down. weather they know it or not. this is just a case in point.

      /rant>

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Typical. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is wrong with the system?

      The government has no balls.

      Not true. Clinton/Reno was beating up on Microsoft quite a bit.

      The Republicans dropped most of the case the moment they got Bush in, and it's unlikely that they're going to start up anything again soon.

      The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.

      --
      May we never see th
  2. And the problem is... by Chromonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...?
    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.
    1. Re:And the problem is... by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem

    2. Re:And the problem is... by belroth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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?
      They aren't making the code available, we're talking about protocols, you know a specification like an RFC.
      --
      I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
    3. Re:And the problem is... by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that they're circumventing the restrictions imposed on them. How are we supposed to know if they have non-discriminatory license terms if we have to sign an NDA just to see those terms? If they were discriminatory, we then couldn't tell anyone...

      There's nothing to stop them from giving different terms to differnt folks in secret (remember those OEM licenses?) and simply bypassing the law.

      It's TOTALLY wrong, IMO. There just isn't a good excuse for this; it makes them look like they're covering something up (and it wouldn't be the first time, according to the findings of fact in this case!)

    4. Re:And the problem is... by oh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From the article

      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.


      Open Source Developer:

      Ok, Mr. Gates, you will sell me the protocol specs. How much?

      Microsoft Rep:

      I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Sign this NDA instead.

      I'm not trying to be a rabid anti-Microsoft here. They are in business, and they are entitled to make money from their work. From a legal standpoint, they have acted illegally, and were told to behave better. Are they really behaving better?

      Another point


      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.


      If they acted illegally, and to make up for that illegal behaviour, they had to level the playing field up a bit. Linux (along with apple) is one of two main competitors. So they release the protocol specs under a license that effectively prohibits its use in Linux. Hmmm.

      Just another viewpoint. I'm not here to karma whore, but it does make you think.
      --
      Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
    5. Re:And the problem is... by King+of+the+World · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You're wrong. The L/GPL strictly forbids other licences that take away rights under the GPL. The is neccessary because of, for example, a situation where GPL software is taken by a company and in order to download it you have to sign a NDA that says redistribution is illegal.

      But that's besides the point here. It's quite clear what the intention of opening the protocols was, and surrounding the protocol information an NDA would go against the spirit of the ruling (which may be illegal if it were solid, and it may be evil as much as anything is "evil").

      Did Microsoft break the letter of the law? There's no information here. You may ignore any post following this one as there's no information to base any decision on.

      --
      --Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
    6. Re:And the problem is... by Wateshay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're sort of right. The problem that the Samba team would have is that they would be accused of stealing the protocol and violating the NDA if they released a reverse engineered version of the protocol, having signed an NDA and proven that they did have access to the actual protocol at one time. Therefore, the only legally safe course of action is for no one even remotely related to the Samba development team to sign the NDA to obtain the protocol. On the other hand, whether signing the NDA to see the royaties opens them up to any possible prosecution down the road, I don't know. I can't see how it would.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    7. Re:And the problem is... by oyenstikker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "they are entitled to make money from their work"

      No no no no no. This is a common misunderstanding. No company should be entitled to anything. You make money if people decide to buy your product.

      Although, I guess if you are abusing a monoopoly such that people haven't a choice, you are sort of entitled. Either way, its a problem.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
  3. NDA? by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure Microsoft understands the whole point of releasing specs to the public is so that the information will become undisclosed....

    1. Re:NDA? by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course Microsoft understands that -- they're not idiots. The problem is the Justice Department didn't understand that (they are idiots), which is why they went along with Microsoft's absurd agreement. The question is whether the Court understands that -- let's hope the Judge groks this and at least tightens up the terms of the agreement.

      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    2. Re:NDA? by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I fear you misunderstand.

      To call the Justice Department idiots presumes that they actually *want* any remedies for Microsoft and their purpose is being thwarted. Remember we had a regime change through this, and the new regime change seems to wish the whole thing would just go away. This little twist is not misaligned with the new goals.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  4. Re:Oh, come ON... by Jherico · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Someone needs to take them back to court for this.."

    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"

  5. Re:Not fair! by belroth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I know there is a lot of anti-Micro$oft sentiment on this board, but you must admit that a company has the right to protect its trade secrets.
    Unless said company is a convicted abusive monopolist who has voluntarily agreed to release said secrets to avoid a more severe penalty.

    (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.
  6. Wrong! Read C.a.r.e.f.u.l.ly by ashitaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. ReactOS, Samba and WINE by isolation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 .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.

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  8. Re:Not fair! by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You missed the point. The Court says that these protocols are not to remain trade secrets, as that perpetuates Microsoft's illegal monopoly. One of the things that makes their monopoloy illegal is the fact that Microsoft's applications developers have inside information about Microsoft's operating systems that other, non-Microsoft developers can't see.

    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.
  9. Re:Not fair! by taniwha · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I know there is a lot of anti-Micro$oft sentiment on this board, but you must admit that a company has the right to protect its trade secrets.

    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

  10. Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: by Thomas+A.+Anderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  11. Re:Oh, come ON... by mtthws · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  12. Re: Oh, come ON... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > 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
  13. Re:NDA be damned! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Why should they bother? by PotatoHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...
  15. Charging for protocol specs??? by glenebob · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What a joke! How do you define 'reasonable'? I find it very very hard to believe a settlement would be proposed with wording that allows what MS is trying to do here. What good are open protocol specs when a 'reasonable' fee and (*choke*) a NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT stand between us and them? Who in their right mind can't see this coming from MS? How does this stuff happen?

    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:

    "Those companies, which include Linux firms, use a special "free software" license called the General Public License that bars any payment."

    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.

  16. Re:NDA be damned! by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.