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
It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
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.
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 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!)
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
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
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
"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.