Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

Typical. by 1lus10n · 2002-10-16 11:59 · 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

Re:Typical. by slickwillie · 2002-10-16 12:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I say let the weapons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software inspectors have unrestricted access.
Re:Typical. by meatpopcicle · 2002-10-16 13:18 · 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
Re:Typical. by 1lus10n · 2002-10-16 13:31 · 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
Re:Typical. by woogieoogieboogie · 2002-10-16 14:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The finding that MSFT is a monopoly is a sham. MSFT is a threat to the US Gubment, just like Standard Oil was and T was. It is not the predatory company practices which the Gubment cares about; it is control of the resources and in modern times, information has become a valuable resource. The lawsuit was more about putting MSFT at the mercy of the Gubment than in protecting citizens. Look at Intel, Uncle Sam called them a monopoly and forced them to open up the chip architecture. The result was the success of AMD. Did the consumer win, partially, but the main effect of the Gubment's actions was to guarantee an alternative supply of x86 chips if there was ever a need. OS's are different, there really cannot be an alternative supply of OS's because if the Gubment ever needed a bunch of copies of Windows, they can make their own.
MSFT is where it is today because of the Gubment. Gubment dollars created extensive revenues for MSFT and continue to this day.
In the end, MSFT is as much a victim of the Gubment as we all are. do you think it is a surprise that after the monopoly ruling that MSFT has made an incredible effort to invade peoples privacy. Is it MSFT that wants to watch you, or is MSFT doing what the Gubment tells them?

--
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
Re:Typical. by PizzaFace · 2002-10-16 14:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I say a regime change is necessary.
Re:Typical. by EelBait · 2002-10-16 14:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

So stop buy their products, already! Buy a Mac. Buy a white-box PC with Linux. Convert your neighbors, friends, co-workers. Hell, buy above items for your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. Work your way into positions of management within your company where you can make decisions that eliminate MS presence. Above all, stop looking to the Government for solutions to economic problems. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy! Learn to work within the system -- not just bitch about it.
Re:Typical. by arkane1234 · 2002-10-16 15:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Dude, your preaching to the choir, here.
There is a small percentage of Americans that actually understand the full ramifications of what is going on. Those people do what they can to stop what is happening, but unfortunately the blinders are on a very large majority. Having everyone here on Linux machines isn't going to make out economic problems go away, considering slashdot probably makes up about 1% of the American population. (those that are Americans that is, the ones that aren't: forgive me.)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Typical. by 0x0d0a · 2002-10-16 16:28 · 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
Re:Typical. by SN74S181 · 2002-10-16 17:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Or, conversely, it could be said the Democrats are a lot better than the Republicans at using the abusive powers of government.

Somebody had to say it. Might as well be me.
Re:Typical. by iomud · 2002-10-16 19:54 · Score: 5, Funny

I agree they have weapons of mass confusion and arent afraid to use them.
Re:Typical. by Zigg · 2002-10-16 21:29 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Yeah, the Dems really kicking Disney's ass over in Congress right now, aren't they?
Re:Typical. by benhaha · 2002-10-16 23:34 · Score: 2, Informative

This is not insightful at all. You say:

Microsoft (...) have been convicted of crimes and bad business practices.

Well, first of all, Microsoft haven't been convicted of anything. They haven't been charged with any crime either, which is a necessary first step. It was a civil trial and they have been found liable for civil offences.

Secondly, the remedy is not supposed to be a punishment. Since punitive damages were not asked for, the judge is not permitted to impose a punitive remedy. She is required by law to impose a remedy that will fix the problem (by compensating victims and maybe preventing future abuse), if at all possible without punishing Microsoft.

Later you say:

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.

Well, as noted above, they haven't been convicted have they?

Arguing for a more lenient remedy is the right of every losing defendant. Even if Microsoft was a convicted criminal, and the remedy was a punishment, it would still be their right to argue for a more lenient one. Even killers are allowed to appeal their sentences.

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

The opinions you expressed are objectively wrong about the material facts enumerated above. You are still entitled to express them, but you are still wrong, no matter how protected your speech is.

--
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
Re:Typical. by mpe · 2002-10-16 23:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

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".

The US policy of "regime change" is a part of policy of backing megacorps. (The only real change is that the US government has recently made some of this policy overt, rather than covert.)

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 ?

If you measure the number as a proportion of the population (even just considering real people and not all the "non mega" corporate entities) you'd be talking a tiny proportion. Best measured on a per million scale, since a percentage would defintly round down to zero.
Re:Typical. by mpe · 2002-10-16 23:52 · Score: 2

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.

Once they have been convicted they are no longer "the accused". Problem is that the fiction of "corporations are legally people" breaks down when they are defendants against serious changes. A person might well be held in a prison or subject to bail conditions which impinge on his or her normal activities. Even if they are aquitted before a court the state isn't going to compensate them if they have been driven to bankruptcy whilst awaiting trial.
When it comes to an entity like Microsoft they appear able to carry on as before throughout the trial, then expected to negotiate their "punishment".
Re:Typical. by mpe · 2002-10-16 23:56 · Score: 2

These Mega-Corps are owned by the people, too. Their stock is in your 401-K, your IRA, and/or your pension plan. Joe Average owns a small piece of Microsoft and most other Mega-Corps.

Mobsters and drug dealers probably have quite a bit of money on the world's stock markets. No sane person would say "you can't go after the Mafia, because it might hurt pension funds (or might harm all sorts of businesses who didn't realise they were dependent on gangsters)".
Re:Typical. by EvilAlien · 2002-10-17 01:13 · Score: 2

Ya, good thing those Democrats focused on the dire threat that is Microsoft and ignored Saddam Hussein and terrorism all those years.

I can't imagine how horrible it would be to live in a world where the (evil) practices of a megacorp in a free-enterprise system allowed them to dominate the marketplace and destroy all competition... I'm sure that if Microsoft wasn't stopped they would have <sarcasm>destroyed MacOS, Linux, and the commercial UNIXes</sarcasm> with their unchecked eevvvvvuuuuuull!

Of course, it is the Clitnon administrations legacy that Apple, the myriad Linux vendors, and the commercial UNIX vendors survived. Sure, terrorists are bad, mmm'kay, and Bush is going after them, BUT AT WHAT COST?! MY GOD MAN, SOMEBODY MUST SAVE THE LINUX!

I just realized I dared to actually type "Microsoft" without a dollar sign or derogatory tweak of the name. Does that mean I'm going to get labeled as a sympathizer and driven out of the /. community?

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Typical. by eam · 2002-10-17 02:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you meant to make a good point, but you screwed up. It wouldn't matter if mobsters had invested in the stock market. It would only matter if we had invested in the mobsters. The proper analogy is if our 401Ks had invested in a stock for "Murder, Inc." and then "Murder, Inc." is busted because it does just what its name implies.

I don't disagree that we should go after these companies. I just thought your analogy was a bit off.
Re:Typical. by GMFTatsujin · 2002-10-17 02:24 · Score: 2

I think you mean "weapons of mass distraction."
Re:Typical. by 0x0d0a · 2002-10-17 03:31 · Score: 2

The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, which means the current administration owns it.

The DoJ can put someone in court, but the judicial branch still has to rule against them. :-)

--
May we never see th
Re:Typical. by TheGreek · 2002-10-17 03:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maine voters approved a constitutional amendment limiting terms on state legislators a few years back. We're now coming into the second "class" of long-term, effective legislators being forced into retirement.

Two years ago when the first class had to retire, they were replaced by people who had little-to-no legislative ability and were EVEN MORE tied to special-interest groups and corporations than the people they replaced.

Do you put term limits on your dentist or family doctor? They're in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, you know.
Re:Typical. by Abreu · 2002-10-17 04:03 · Score: 2

I think the ultimate weapon of mass distraction for Microsoft is this... everybody in Mexico has a pirate copy of that one... Has already surpassed solitaire and minesweeper in terms of lost productivity

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Typical. by evilpenguin · 2002-10-17 04:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, my personal idea for radical reform? Draft legislators from the pool of registered voters. Yep. Just like jury duty. Citizen legislators.
Re:Typical. by Tetsujin28 · 2002-10-17 04:17 · Score: 2

How are you supposed to collaborate? In Hauku?

Haiku, just a poem?
Now that Slashdot spills the beans,
Thwarts DMCA.

--
- - - -
The real Tetsujin 28 is a giant robot.
Re:Typical. by theCoder · 2002-10-17 05:05 · Score: 2

In that case, wouldn't it be prudent restrict Microsoft from selling any products or services until an actual sentance is decided? I'd bet that would get the wheels of Justice turning a little faster. As long as it's "business as usual", Microsoft has little incentive to comply with any sort of sentance.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Re:Typical. by j3110 · 2002-10-17 07:48 · Score: 2

Hey, if your vote isn't going to count, why not sell it? :)

I just hate the vote buying system we have now. Every few years a motion is brought up to do away with gift giving to representatives, but it keeps getting shot down. In America, the people get one vote (house of rep.), the land get's a vote (electorial college), and the money gets a vote (lobeying). I thought the government was for and by the people? It's really for and by the sum of people, land, and money. If you have all three, you can win. Gore had people, Bush had land, and they both had money. Turns out, land one last election. (or almost did)

How about a government where the people's opinions matter more than 6 months a year? With modern communication and transportation, the electorial college is pointless. (The original arguement was that states required independance because of localized beliefs.)

--
Karma Clown
Re:Typical. by mpe · 2002-10-17 19:35 · Score: 2

I think you meant to make a good point, but you screwed up. It wouldn't matter if mobsters had invested in the stock market. It would only matter if we had invested in the mobsters. The proper analogy is if our 401Ks had invested in a stock for "Murder, Inc." and then "Murder, Inc." is busted because it does just what its name implies.

More likely they'd use named like "Bank of Credit and Commerce International", or even "Enron"... If you have a broad based holding, such as a pension fund, it's quite likely that some of the stock holding encompases criminals and terrorists. The way stock markets work something which affects one stock can easily affect the entire market.

interesting factoid by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-16 12:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:interesting factoid by belroth · 2002-10-16 12:10 · Score: 5, Funny

He doesn't need to make disparaging remarks, he can just quote from Judge Jacksons Findings of Fact :-)

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Re:interesting factoid by timothy_m_smith · 2002-10-16 12:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

The thing is, whether you like Microsoft or not, if you are there competitor you know that this settlement and court case makes them weak so you batter them every chance you get. The settlement says that Microsoft can charge royalties for the protocols and they are doing that. The settlement did not say that Microsoft had to GPL the protocols.
Re:interesting factoid by OddWeapon · 2002-10-16 13:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I know Webbink personally and he went to school in North Carolina (where RedHat is BTW). And I am pretty sure he never interned at MS either.
Re:interesting factoid by Feanturi · 2002-10-16 14:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

The thing is, whether you like Microsoft or not, if you are there competitor you know that this settlement and court case makes them weak so you batter them every chance you get. The settlement says that Microsoft can charge royalties for the protocols and they are doing that. The settlement did not say that Microsoft had to GPL the protocols.

I agree, though I don't understand why I must swear secrecy to read the LICENSE. The rest is all perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned.

But what bothers me the most is that this even has to happen. The fact that this information was not previously made available to developers on purpose should call for some big fines or something, shouldn't it? It's been going on for years.. I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.
Re:interesting factoid by PainKilleR-CE · 2002-10-16 15:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.

Oh please, you can see the list of protocols that are covered. http://microsoft.com/legal/protocols/protocols.asp
I'd like to know how MS' implementation of IPv4 or Firewire is a secret hook for a program to get into Windows. The API portions of the release are openly available to anyone without an NDA.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:interesting factoid by arkane1234 · 2002-10-16 15:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!
Re:interesting factoid by timothy_m_smith · 2002-10-17 02:13 · Score: 2

The point I was making was not that the settlement was perfect, but rather that the courts and gov't having "some" level of control over MS made them weaker. No doubt that Microsoft's competitors will want to complain to hopefully prompt action from the oversight group and courts. It is in their interests.
Re:interesting factoid by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 02:36 · Score: 3, Informative

You're close!

A protocol is the flow of data and an agreement on the type of data that will be transported within that flow.

An API is an interface allowing one entity to interact with another entity. Normally that interaction causes an action of some type to be taken.

Now then, it is certainly possible to have a known protocol with an unknown API. Knowing the protocol alone does little for you. Likewise, the inverse is also true. Knowing what the API is and how to use it does little good if you are unable to convey your intentions if you don't know what the protocol is.

I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).

You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.

Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.

So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.

We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
Re:interesting factoid by PainKilleR-CE · 2002-10-17 03:03 · Score: 2, Informative

I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).

It really depends on what you are doing, though. From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level. Of course, if they needed an API rather than a protocol, they wouldn't be harping over this NDA, either.

You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.

Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.

but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side, as it's the way Windows handles the interaction between CIFS and the file system, authentication, and print services, for example. Since Samba doesn't run on Windows, the information required to do that would not be in a Windows API, because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux. Now, if the protocol was sending data in a way that was not described in the protocol itself, you'd have a point.

So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.

We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.

I agree that both are very important, but there are cases in which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol, and vice versa. My point was primarily to make a distinction between APIs and protocols and to point out that if Samba was looking for an API, the API wouldn't be covered under this NDA. Since CIFS is on the list of protocols covered under the NDA and CIFS is one of the protocols used by Samba, it does make sense that they are looking for this particular information. Whether or not they need details on the API that Windows uses with CIFS would really depend on the level of detail in the CIFS specification in the first place. You certainly don't need the Windows networking API to communicate with Windows systems over IPv4, but it makes life easier if you're trying to communicate over IPv4 from a Windows system.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:interesting factoid by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 03:53 · Score: 2

From my limited knowledge of Samba it would seem that they have no use for any Windows API in their software, since their software interacts with Windows at a protocol level, not an API level.

Well, first of all, the article actually doesn't make the distinction even though you do. Second of all, you clearly don't understand what is being talked about. It seems you ignored the example I gave on forms (API) and evelopes (protocol). In hind site, I do see that I overlooked attempting to clarify that often people refer to a "protocol" generically even though it's actually comprised of two or three parts. Those parts are protocol (transport and encoding of that transport), flow (how, when and why transport is used) and message format (how and what messages are to be encoded -- often conforms to an "API").

Now then, once you understand that, there really isn't a distinction between "APIs and protocols", as referred to in the article, as they are often tightely coupled. In this case, SAMBA basically makes a series of requests for remote execution requests (aka RPCs). In this case, they want to know what RPC's (API's) they can use, what data they need to pass and can expect back, and when it makes sense to use those API's (RPC's). The inverse is also true. From this, you should be able to understand you're barking up the wrong tree (aka. wrong).

You also said, "...but that API would only be applicable on the Windows side...", which is again, very incorrect. Basically, a windows system can make a request (RPC) to the implementations API to perform an action of some type. In this case, the API is REQUIRED to match on BOTH SIDES in order for them to correctly communicate and function.

"Since Samba doesn't run on Windows...", has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. "...because authentication and file and print services are handled differently on Linux" has absolutly nothing to do with the topic at hand and futher shows how little you know and understand on the topic at hand. It doesn't matter that their print services are implemented different but it DOES MATTER that a SAMBA system can make a request via the API (RPC) to queue something for printing (inverse true too).

You also went on to say, "which you clearly do not need the API to utilize the protocol", which is again, very incorrect so long as you understand that you have to use the API over the protocol!!!!!
Re:interesting factoid by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 05:30 · Score: 2

That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's.
Re:interesting factoid by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 06:29 · Score: 2

Shesh...

You said: "All of that being said, the APIs to which you are referring would normally be within the protocol description, and in normal Win32 documentation wouldn't be listed in the list of APIs."

I said: "That's the difference between published API's and unpublished API's."

Basically, since MS doesn't want alternate implementations of some of their technology, much of it is unpublished. That is the reason it is not "in normal Win32 documentation". Again, that's the difference between it being published and unpublished API's. This has nothing to do with the decree.

Since you seem to be a pedant, allow to me spell this out. Unpublished and/or undocumented in this case means, "not generally available for public consumption".

You also said:
The settlement specifically talks about APIs seperately from communications protocols.

That may be but only shows how naive the lawyers were on technology matters when they wrote it. At best, it is ambigious which, I'm sure, is one of many reasons why MS is in such a hurry to accept it. Basically it has zero meaning, zero impact, and is completely ambigious to further tie up further govenerment action, forever.

NDA be damned! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-16 12:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Just one person, company, etc. to go through the process then illegally release it to the world. NDA be damned!

Re:NDA be damned! by pizza_milkshake · 2002-10-16 12:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

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...
Re:NDA be damned! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-16 12:56 · 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.
Re:NDA be damned! by ceejayoz · 2002-10-16 14:08 · 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.
Re:NDA be damned! by mbogosian · 2002-10-16 14:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
Re:NDA be damned! by pantherace · 2002-10-16 17:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

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. (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)
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.)
Re:NDA be damned! by himi · 2002-10-16 19:03 · Score: 2

Most Samba development is done outside the US, and I believe all the actual reverse engineering work is too, for exactly this reason.

himi

--

My very own DeCSS mirror.
Re:NDA be damned! by PainKilleR-CE · 2002-10-16 23:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

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]
Re:NDA be damned! by PainKilleR-CE · 2002-10-17 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

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]
Re:NDA be damned! by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 02:39 · Score: 2

You are correct! It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is, however, illegal to have an illegal monopoly, which is exactly what MS has been declared.
Re:NDA be damned! by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 03:30 · Score: 2

Hmm...you seem to be WAY out there.

How you use a monopoly can be illegal

That's EXACTLY what people refer to when they call it an "illegal monopoly". It means that they are a monopoly that is breaking the law. Thus, the phrase, "illegal monopoly".

Not very hard to understand at all.
Re:NDA be damned! by GooberToo · 2002-10-17 03:56 · Score: 2

So in other words, no one should ever "coin a phrase". Oh wait, that's wrong as obviously everyone that speaks English need to go back to school as obviously you can create coins from phrases. Duh, what was I thinking.

Further followup will be ignored as you are clearly looking to fight rather than learn or simply understand someone else's point of view.

Grown ups tend to have better things to do.

Oh, come ON... by EvilStein · 2002-10-16 12:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

" 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.

Re:Oh, come ON... by Jherico · 2002-10-16 12:11 · 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"
Re:Oh, come ON... by mtthws · 2002-10-16 12:33 · 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
Re: Oh, come ON... by Black+Parrot · 2002-10-16 12:35 · 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
Re: Oh, come ON... by AresTheImpaler · 2002-10-16 12:40 · Score: 2, Funny

So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
Because they have lots of money?
Re:Oh, come ON... by moosesocks · 2002-10-16 12:42 · Score: 3, Funny

The REAL question is how your comment is ranked as Score:5,Troll

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re: Oh, come ON... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-16 12:52 · Score: 2, Funny

I think we are. Look at all the crap that is being thrown at them the last few months.
Re:Oh, come ON... by the+gnat · 2002-10-16 13:04 · Score: 2, Funny

try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do

I'd just like to try to get Slashdot posters to spell out every little detail of their comments correctly for a change.
Re:Oh, come ON... by EvilStein · 2002-10-16 13:04 · Score: 2

You got me too. Hrm. I don't think that it was trolling at all.. trolling would be something along the lines of "Oh, they had to pay and use passport? Well linux companies have no money" or something like that.

Bah. I am not a friggin troll. I may smell funny and have cheesy feet, but I ain't a troll. :P~
Re:Oh, come ON... by Dirtside · 2002-10-16 13:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

Speaking of Iraq, one of the top news stories today (you do get your news from Google News, right?) was about Iraq's "democratic" presidential referendum (deciding who will be the next president). Saddam Hussein was apparently the *only* candidate, and every single one of the registered 11 million-plus voters voted for him.

Reminds me of Microsoft hiring one of their own PR people to write an "I switched to Windows XP from the Mac." Ah, those were the days (i.e. yesterday).

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re: Oh, come ON... by NattyDread · 2002-10-16 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

Because they have lots of money?

... or very little oil ...

--
Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
Re:Oh, come ON... by kittywampus · 2002-10-16 13:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've finally decided that I believe the courts cannot resolve this. So, now I'll just what what little I can - I've purchased an iMac. Of course, my purchase makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. But maybe if someone else does it too...
Re: Oh, come ON... by ActiveSX · 2002-10-16 13:32 · Score: 2

So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

You've seen how unpredictable compiled versions of Windows are. Now imagine PURE, RAW, UNREFINED WINDOWS JUICE (WITH PULP!!!)! You see, the government doesn't want to take out Redmond in it's entirety.
Re:Oh, come ON... by SmallFurryCreature · 2002-10-16 13:38 · Score: 2

Not for one thing or the other, but this isn't Joe Smo against the Mighty MicroSoft. This is United States of America against Microsoft. I think you will find that it has money and lawyers coming out of its ears.
The real problem as in the Iraq example given is not so much the two mentioned parties but the ones at the sideline who have reasons to maintain the status quo. In Iraq's case the europian nations we have made themselves totally depended on oil from the region and want to get the hugely productive orders for rearming/rebuilding Iraq.
In the case of MicroSoft there is of course the politicians that MS bought who don't want to see their meal ticket cut.(You don't think it is a conicedence that with the change in administation the trial lost a lot of steam?)
Of course those people who want to DRM computers also have a very clear intrest in keeping MicroSoft in control. Imagine trying to introduce crippled computing if you could just switch to mac/freebsd/linux/unix/beos/amiga cause all the standards are open and you will just have to get used to a slightly different icon on the Start menu but you can still access the fileserver, read youre docs, communicate with the mailserver.
Samba is doing the right thing. So it has troubles working with the latest version of MS until they figure out what MicroSoft has changed this time. So? How many production setups do you know that change immidiatly to the latest version of MS anyway?
As a side note. Isn't there somekind of open source version of NFS for windows? Problem solved. (nah of course not since that would involve installing software on every windows client rather than on the one linux server) Ah well keep up the good work samba.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:Oh, come ON... by minion · 2002-10-16 13:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re: Oh, come ON... by fobbman · 2002-10-16 13:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Because they use Windows, and it'd be silly to bomb something that already crashes incessantly. Seems like a waste of explosives to me.
Re: Oh, come ON... by EvanED · 2002-10-16 14:23 · Score: 2

Not to mention Bill Gates didn't try to kill a certain figure's daddy.
Re: Oh, come ON... by simetra · 2002-10-16 15:00 · Score: 2

Because...

Microsoft pays taxes.

Microsoft employs many Americans.

Microsoft isn't a terrorist state.

Microsoft buys politicians.

Microsoft is mostly clean, un-threatening white guys.

--

"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
Re: Oh, come ON... by pben · 2002-10-16 15:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think that you will find that you paid more in federal income tax that the Microsoft corp did. All those stock options are tax deductable. So I paid more in income tax than Microsoft Corporation. Sad but true.
Re:Oh, come ON... by Waffle+Iron · 2002-10-16 16:13 · Score: 2, Funny

In fact, what on earth makes anyone think that he would share these weapons? If he has them, they are a source of power. If he gives them away, he is giving power away to other people.
You obviously don't understand the principles of the Free Weapons of Mass Destruction Movement. If I make an atomic bomb it gives me power. If I share it with you, it doesn't diminish my power. All I ask in return, is if you improve my bomb, is that you share it back with me.
For example, let's say you build a thermonuclear bomb using my atomic bomb as the initiator. It's only fair that I get to share the benefits of your superior nuclear firepower that I enabled you to obtain.
In the end, this works out best for everyone. Deterrence only works well when everyone is on a level playing field. The best way to ensure this is to make sure that WMD knowhow and materials are freely available to everyone.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Door-opening+Fascist · 2002-10-16 16:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Microsoft does not pay income taxes, and has not paid income taxes for the last several years. They also pushed through the legislation that legalized some of the accounting practices of Enron and Worldcom.
Re:Oh, come ON... by cornice · 2002-10-16 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · 2002-10-16 18:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Microsoft pays taxes."

Not really. Not that much.

"Microsoft employs many Americans."

Not really. They have under 30 thousand employees. Let's Compare that to some other large employers shall we.

IBM = 312,000
AT&T = 151,000
Exxon = 131,000
Philip Morris = 140,000

The paltry 30K employees of MS could very easily be absorbed into the US economy.

"Microsoft isn't a terrorist state."

No but they are convicted criminals.

"Microsoft buys politicians."

There is no debating this.

"Microsoft is mostly clean, un-threatening white guys."

Mostly white sure. Un-threating? depends on who you are I suppose. Unethical most likely? Remember these people have a cult like attitude towards their company and Bill Gates and have remarkable ability to rationalize away any evil committed in their name and with their help.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re: Oh, come ON... by jpmorgan · 2002-10-16 18:54 · Score: 2

Sure?. Those figures come from official SEC filings (which are also published online, but not as nicely formatted).
In total that's $3,684,000,000 paid in taxes over the previous 12 months. If you paid more taxes than them... can I borrow $100? :)
Re:Oh, come ON... by Jhan · 2002-10-16 19:45 · Score: 2

I saw an actual vote form (or whatever you call it) in the paper. There were actually two options. "Yes" and "no". The displayed form had "yes" ticked, in the voters own blood. Scary.

--
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
Re: Oh, come ON... by ClosedSource · 2002-10-16 23:50 · Score: 2

"No but they are convicted criminals."

No, they are not. As has been noted here on many, many occasions the antitrust case was a civil one.
Re: Oh, come ON... by mpe · 2002-10-17 00:03 · Score: 2

Microsoft pays taxes.

Actually they appear very good at not paying taxes

Microsoft employs many Americans.

Not than many, especially when you consider H1B visas.
Re: Oh, come ON... by HiThere · 2002-10-17 03:24 · Score: 2

It's so hard to get the dates.

More seriously, it's (at least partly) a matter of public record. You may doubt how much the campaign contributions influenced the vote, but it's unreasonable to deny that that was the intent. MS never engaged in this lobbying until the anti-trust investigation was launched. Since then they've been quite active.

What does "bought" mean to you? If you mean quid-pro-quo deals, those are quite difficult to prove. Particularly if you don't have a large herd of defense attorneys in case they decide to sue you. Truth is only a defense if you get a chance to use it.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · 2002-10-17 15:19 · Score: 2

"Guilty or otherwise, if MS had of paid off the democrats they'd never have been targeted for prosecution."

Which just proves that MS bought politicians. You seem to be saying that it's OK for MS to buy politicians because politicians acted out against them for spite. But two wrongs don't make a right.

BTW they were found guilty.

Also I would be very interested if you can dig up any evidence whatsoever of your allegations about clinton. One email, a snippet from a news paper, a magazine article. Anything at all will do. I searched google and found nothing but MS astro turfers claiming this on forums. Any hard evidence?

--
War is necrophilia.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · 2002-10-17 15:26 · Score: 2

" Actually its closer to 50,000 employees"

No it's not. I did some quick searching and the highest number I found was 36K. Big difference.

"They also are hiring, unlike most high-techs these days."

Yes it's nice to have a monopoly isn't it. While your competitor dies from your predetory pricing you can pick up some of their employees cheap. The rest of their employees can stand in the bread line like every body else though.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · 2002-10-17 15:36 · Score: 2

" 30 k employess isn't a lot?"

No not really. Not when compared to GM, ATT, IBM, wall mart, exxon/mobil, boeing and a thousand other companies in the world. A billion is not that much considering a 10 trillion dollar economy. To put it into perpective consider this. The US govt spent 2 billion dollars giving aid to israel this year. A billion is nothing.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re: Oh, come ON... by Malcontent · 2002-10-17 15:42 · Score: 2

That's just a technicality. Corporations can't go to jail so they are not tried in criminal court.

If the US had a real and equitable justice system the corporation woould have been found guilty of antitrust violations and been split up and the officers of MS would have been found guilty of perjury, evidence tampering, and witness tampering and ended up in jail.

Alas we don't have a real and equitable justice system. Just the best that money can buy.

--
War is necrophilia.

And the problem is... by Chromonkey · 2002-10-16 12:00 · 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.

Re:And the problem is... by Jonny+Ringo · 2002-10-16 12:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Your absolutely right. It also doesn't say they can't wipe there ass with the papers before they hand them over. Maybe they should do that too.
Re:And the problem is... by Geekboy(Wizard) · 2002-10-16 12:06 · 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
Re:And the problem is... by belroth · 2002-10-16 12:08 · 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.
Re:And the problem is... by Chromonkey · 2002-10-16 12:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

But once again, there is nothing 'evil' or illegal about requiring an NDA to view the licensing structure.

To say that 'we can't sign an NDA, therefore this is discriminatory against as' (as was implied in the article) is facetious. The Samba Team can sign an NDA, and it wouldn't violate GNU at all. They can even purchase access to the API's, they just can't release the aforementioned API's under GNU (as is spelled out in GNU)

Or am I wrong?

--
There are very few real things in this world...this isn't one of them.
Re:And the problem is... by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · 2002-10-16 12:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

No, and that's the problem with the settlement. Not that they should be required to make their code Open Source, but they should be required to publish the protocols in an open manner so that other companies/software projects (ie. NetApp, EMC, Samba) can interoperate.

That was one of the whole points of the legal action remember, to prevent them leveraging their desktop monopoly into the server space.

Repeat after me... competition is *good* :-).

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:And the problem is... by Xenographic · 2002-10-16 12:20 · 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!)
Re:And the problem is... by oh · 2002-10-16 12:22 · 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.
Re:And the problem is... by King+of+the+World · 2002-10-16 12:24 · 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
Re:And the problem is... by Wateshay · 2002-10-16 12:26 · 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."
Re:And the problem is... by Thomas+A.+Anderson · 2002-10-16 12:27 · Score: 2

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)
Re:And the problem is... by malkavian · 2002-10-16 12:29 · Score: 2

There is nothing intrinsically 'evil' about signing an NDA.
Just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with walking down a street.
However if you've just been found guilty of some heinous crime, and sent out to jail, then, you shouldn't then be walking down the street as if nothing has happened.
MS have been found guilty of being a Monopoly! The usual rules don't apply, as they're in the situation where the normal tides of commerce and capitalism don't affect them in a normal way. They've been told to shape up and be good.
However, they're doing all they can to ignore everything they're told, and say "Well, everyone else does this.. Why can't we?".
Well, the answer to this is: They've been found guilty. Just as usual freedoms of the average person don't quite count to convicted felons, so the usual freedoms of commerce no longer apply to MS.
They put themselves in this position. Now they should live with it, instead of still trying to be the playground bully.

Malk
Re: And the problem is... by Black+Parrot · 2002-10-16 12:37 · Score: 3, Funny

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

So, what do you have to do to look at the NDA?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:And the problem is... by michael_cain · 2002-10-16 13:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

The problem is that they're circumventing the restrictions imposed on them.
Excuse me... imposed on them? MS claims they are voluntarily complying with the terms of the agreement that they negotiated with the DOJ. That agreement has not been accepted by the judge, hence has no force. I still believe that the judge will decide that Jackson was right the first time around and that splitting the company is the only way to reliably keep MS from repeating the illegal actions that they were convicted of. Remember that the Appeals Court did not say that splitting the company was wrong, only that Jackson had not conducted proceedings appropriate for such a harsh penalty.
Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...
Re:And the problem is... by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-10-16 13:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is extremely important that the protocols be made 'publicly available'. That means that anyone and everyone should be able to review them just as an RFC can be reviewed. Otherwise, those that privately review the protocol specifications are tainted (by the NDA). Once you are tainted by Microsoft, you essentially could be prevented from working on any GPL project ever. Even if any GPL code you write has nothing to do with whatever Microsoft documentation you reviewed under a NDA, Microsoft with their money could make your life hell. Bottom line, don't get in bed with Microsoft this way. Even if you don't work on GPL code now, you may want to in the future.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:And the problem is... by oyenstikker · 2002-10-16 14:19 · 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.
Re:And the problem is... by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-10-16 14:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Let's say you have some code that does 'Z'. Let's also say that you have been tainted by signing a Microsoft NDA regarding 'Y'. Later, Microsoft comes around and says that you violated the NDA by implementing 'X' in your 'Z' and they say that you learned about 'X' because you reviewed some of their (Microsofts) documentation about 'Y'. They (Microsoft) say that concept 'X' was implemented in 'Y' and you stole it ('X').
Whether their accusation is accurate or not is not the point, you are potentially screwed over by Microsoft lawyers. They can make your like hell just because they feel like it.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:And the problem is... by SpaceLifeForm · 2002-10-16 14:49 · Score: 2

You would not want to share it with me! You would *ONLY* want to share it with me so that I could write code to *interoperate* with you. Microsoft does NOT want anyone else to interoperate with them.
This is nothing more than an attempt to dirty others, to taint you or your company.
Once tainted, you can be driven out of business.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:And the problem is... by 7-Vodka · 2002-10-16 15:20 · Score: 2

omegod. I know you're already at +5, but I'm still desperately trying to mod you up as I wipe the tears from my eyes.

--
Liberty.
Re: And the problem is... by tunah · 2002-10-16 17:56 · Score: 2

Nothing

--
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
Re:And the problem is... by Malcontent · 2002-10-16 18:24 · Score: 2

I think by now nobody has any faith that the ashcroft justice dept will deliver justice here. Even if the judge throws the book at MS no way in hell ashcroft will enforce the verdict. The Bush administration has been wholly bought by Bill Gates and they will do whatever he wants them to.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:And the problem is... by Alsee · 2002-10-16 22:38 · Score: 2

Its a good laugh to hear people wine and moan about the settlement and how the DOJ caved. The outcome of the case if it goes back to trial is *definately* not assured.

Actually the outcome of the case is assured. Microsoft has been found guilty. The only thing that is not assured is just how many different different illegal acts they will be convicted of. Once thay have been found guilty the judge can still take the other points into consideration when handing down a sentence.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:And the problem is... by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2002-10-17 01:12 · Score: 2

Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...

Perhaps this is a good thing then. The longer Colleen waits to decide, the more time M$ has to show their a$$ and prove that Judge Jackson was right to begin with.

Give em enough rope to hang themselves with, so to speak.

--
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Re:And the problem is... by dcgaber · 2002-10-17 02:38 · Score: 3, Informative

This is correct (and those later posts that say the Appeals Court prohibbited break-up are wrong, the Court said that procedurally the break-up was not appropriate b/c of Jackson's ex parte comments and lack of hearings on remedies. In fact, the Court issued a later ruling spelling out quite clearly, in a two sentance order, that no remedy was off the table!)

However, the DoJ, chose on their own, to take break-up off the table. They took away their best bargaining chip for reasons people can feel free to speculate on. In their later seperate action, the hold-out States also chose not to pursue break-up and instead wanted full unbundlin, port of office and IE to rival browsers inc. Linux, and a crown jewell provision to open up source code for future violations.

The gist is this, Judge CKK is not going to impose a break-up that no one is asking for. It will probably be a remedy that is stronger than the DoJ sell-out but less stringent than the State's proposal. Expect MS to appeal again, expect this not to end soon, or expect the unexpected.
Re:And the problem is... by poot_rootbeer · 2002-10-17 03:58 · Score: 2

No user should be entitled to anything. You can open a Word document if you decide to buy Microsoft's product.
Re:And the problem is... by Alsee · 2002-10-17 04:10 · Score: 2

Which could range from 0 to finite number greater than zero.

No.

Microsoft has been found guilty. Convited. Greater than zero.

As a matter of fact they have been convited of anti-trust violations in more than one trial, including the current trial. The appellet court only struck down part of the convitcion and sent it back for a re-hearing. The rest of the convition stands.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:And the problem is... by benhaha · 2002-10-17 09:48 · Score: 2, Interesting
Microsoft has been found guilty. Convited.

As a matter of fact they have been convited of anti-trust violations in more than one trial, including the current trial.

Microsoft have not been convicted of anything because this is a civil trial not a criminal trial.

It's true that Microsoft have been found liable on some of the points, but:
- They haven't been convicted because it is a civil trial.
- They haven't been found guilty, because it is a civil offence.
- They haven't been shown to be criminals, because this is a civil trial
- They can't be punished because the DoJ didn't ask for punitive damages.
Now, you may wish they had been convicted, you may wish that it was a crime, you may not think that the law is tough enough, you may want them to be punished, you may hate Microsoft with your very heart and soul, but that doesn't change the fact that they haven't been found guilty, convicted or even charged with any crime.

It was a civil trial. What is so difficult to understand?
--
NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT

NDA? by qortra · 2002-10-16 12:00 · 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....

Re:NDA? by Rick+the+Red · 2002-10-16 12:10 · 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.
Re:NDA? by dpilot · 2002-10-16 13:23 · 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.

So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · 2002-10-16 12:04 · Score: 4, Funny

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)

Re:So, I found a way... by Jace+of+Fuse! · 2002-10-16 12:28 · Score: 2

The problem with that is whoever obtains it from you is technially breaking several laws.

It would just be easier to download the information, give it to your friends, and say "Shhh, you didn't get this from me."

I have a feeling a whole lot of that is going to happen anyway.

--

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:So, I found a way... by pizza_milkshake · 2002-10-16 12:35 · Score: 2

it sounds so silly, but i honestly think that would be great. the news folks would be all over that... microsoft's info being "stolen" because their operating system using the protocols do them poorly enough the bypassing security is easy. my mind could go in circles with this for the rest of the day.
Re:So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · 2002-10-16 12:39 · Score: 2

but then I violated the NDA, by giving it to my friends. Also, tehy cannot use the info, bc MS would associate my friends with me and me with the NDA that i signed. So, why not let my Windowz Boxen get hacked, and the protocal info anonymously released onto the great expanse of the internet?

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re:So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · 2002-10-16 12:46 · Score: 2

Awsome, I am in luck, I am 17....I need to do this before febuary. anyone wanna give me a big wad of cash to pay for it?

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re:So, I found a way... by Istealmymusic · 2002-10-16 13:06 · Score: 2

The answer is clearly explained here. Cheers.

--
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
Re:So, I found a way... by Istealmymusic · 2002-10-16 13:09 · Score: 2, Funny

That's not the only thing you need to do. *cough*Virgin*cough* Spend your $$$ elsewhere.
Only kidding. Virgin *smirk*

--
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
Re:So, I found a way... by Phroggy · 2002-10-16 13:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Awsome, I am in luck, I am 17....I need to do this before febuary. anyone wanna give me a big wad of cash to pay for it?

Would it be illegal in any way for me to pay a juvenile to do this? Is it technically against the law for a juvenile to do this? If it is, then it would be illegal for me to pay them to break the law, I'm sure. IANAL (obviously); can anyone who is comment?

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:So, I found a way... by EvanED · 2002-10-16 14:41 · Score: 2

Couldn't you just decide to not press charges?
Re:So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · 2002-10-17 12:21 · Score: 2

Microsoft? Deciding NOT to press charges? That would happen only after Ghandi started a world war, Humans land on Pluto and George Bush starts rapping. Microsoft will press charges for ANYTHING in order to protect its' monopoly. They would sue my pet rat if it chewed through a shrink-wrap EULA without reading it.

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Re:So, I found a way... by EvanED · 2002-10-17 13:49 · Score: 2

That's not what I'm saying; it wouldn't be up to MS. If you agree to the NDA and get the info and store it on your computer and someone hacks YOU, why couldn't you decide not to press charges?
Re:So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · 2002-10-18 08:30 · Score: 2

ok, thanks for the explination. its still not entirely clear, but choose to press charges against the hacker? I wouldn't know who he/she might be, given anon proxies, etc. Other interpretation: sue MS for faulty software that caused me to lose something? I can't bc I agreed to their EULA when I installed Windows. That EULA states "we are not responsable for..." I think I got your question. I wouldn't press charges anyways

--
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)

An NDA Just to get the terms?? by ashitaka · 2002-10-16 12:05 · Score: 2

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.

Re:An NDA Just to get the terms?? by Large+Green+Mallard · 2002-10-16 13:02 · Score: 2

I use samba every day as an integral part of my work. Without it, I would have to be screwing around with Windows 2000 Server.. and I don't be wanting that.

"My name is Alex Dawson.. and I'm a Windows Computer Lab administrator"

[tm & (r) Apple Computer] ;)

Since when? by Luke-Jr · 2002-10-16 12:06 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Re:Since when? by oh · 2002-10-16 13:15 · Score: 2

You can charge someone as much as you like for a GPL program, but you can't stop them from on-selling a copy for as much (or as little, ie $0) as they like. Having to send $5 to microsoft with each copy would conflict with that.

From GNU's definition of free software

you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

Link to the GPL

--
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.

Typical industry practices by silas_moeckel · 2002-10-16 12:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Obfuscation? by Trusty+Penfold · 2002-10-16 12:08 · Score: 2, Funny

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?

Re:Obfuscation? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · 2002-10-16 12:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

Computer science 101 time :-).

API's are *not* protocols. I don't care what their API's are, I don't program under Win32.

I care what bytes come out from and go into the *network* from a Windows computer as a protocol description.

You know, that rather thick blue piece of string hanging out the back of your computer :-).

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:Obfuscation? by overshoot · 2002-10-16 12:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quibble:
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, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
Re:Obfuscation? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · 2002-10-16 12:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's a fair cop 'guv :-). Good point. Ok, I don't care what
their *internal* protocols are :-) :-).

Thanks,

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

Pecunia non olet. by vonWoland · 2002-10-16 12:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Pecunia non olet. by ClosedSource · 2002-10-17 00:02 · Score: 2

"In reality MS has corrupted the political process to its own ends"

Actually, had it not been for the political lobbying on the part of MS competitors, there never would have been an antitrust case. It was MS that was corrupted by the polical process rather than the other way around.
Re:Pecunia non olet. by bockman · 2002-10-17 02:26 · Score: 2

since its primary duty is towards its shareholders
As someone else pointed out in another thread, _this_ it why the system is broken.
Their primary duty should be toward their _customers_ (you know, those peope that give them money in exchange of some kind of product/service). Only once customers get a fair deal for their money ( where fair is admittedly a greatly subjective term, but broad boundaries are still better than nothing), then they should be free to care for their shareholders.

--
Ciao
----
FB

A dirty lawyer? by isolation · 2002-10-16 12:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Never. I dont see how you would even think of such a thing.

--
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com

Re:Not fair! by belroth · 2002-10-16 12:15 · 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.

One way around... by Jouster · 2002-10-16 12:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

is to get an organization that many people belong to, say OSDN, to buy the data. Anyone with an OSDN login can view the data (same "person", legally speaking--everyone's a rights-designate of OSDN if the principals sign a few forms [and we click an "I agree" button or two]).

Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, 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.

Damn.

Jouster

Re:One way around... by Jouster · 2002-10-16 14:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
Re:One way around... by HiThere · 2002-10-17 03:35 · Score: 2

Don't worry. I'm sure it's legal somewhere. Of course, it's also illegal somewhere.

Did I leave "it" unspecified? Why so I did. I suppose what matters is whether the country in which it is illegal has a big army and a mean disposition. If it's a big enough bastard, people will let it walk all over their neighbors.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Workarounds by overshoot · 2002-10-16 12:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Although software libre developers can't get access to Microsoft's specs or API source, it's quite possible to work around the problem.

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, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Re:Workarounds by SurfsUp · 2002-10-16 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Wrong! Read C.a.r.e.f.u.l.ly by ashitaka · 2002-10-16 12:16 · 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.

Re:Wrong! Read C.a.r.e.f.u.l.ly by belroth · 2002-10-16 12:28 · Score: 2

Yes I know, bu my point is that you are being asked to jump through hoops to access protocols and not code as stated in the post to which I was replying.
If you are signing NDAs to see the license terms I doubt that the protocols themselves wouldn't have one too, it would be bizarre but not impossible.
I suppose, if one was paranoid, one could suspect that the terms presented could differ depending upon the passport id used to request them - have a 'friends' list of ids which get cheaper rates...
wrt your last point, it's most definitely wrong of course.

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

ReactOS, Samba and WINE by isolation · 2002-10-16 12:19 · 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

Re:Not fair! by Rick+the+Red · 2002-10-16 12:21 · 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.

Re:Not fair! by taniwha · 2002-10-16 12:22 · 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

No, it is not by kfg · 2002-10-16 12:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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

No! Really? by Snork+Asaurus · 2002-10-16 12:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Journalists, I grow tired of this. Wouldn't it save a lot of time, electrons and trees if you only published articles when Microsoft wasn't up to its old tricks?

This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.

--
Sigs are bad for your health.

The industry standard... as a monopoly by turtlendogrmusd.net · 2002-10-16 12:26 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

Re:Is this true? by diaphanous · 2002-10-16 12:26 · Score: 5, Informative

You can charge a distribution fee, but not a royalty.

To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ.

~Phillip

huh? by commodoresloat · 2002-10-16 12:29 · Score: 2, Redundant

Imagine a muslim extremist demanding full access to the plans of a nuculear plant in downtown New York!

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.

Re:And the problem is...this! by NortWind · 2002-10-16 12:29 · Score: 2, 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.

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?

Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: by Thomas+A.+Anderson · 2002-10-16 12:30 · 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)

Re:Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: by bellings · 2002-10-16 15:15 · Score: 2

I have no idea what the licensing is for the specification. If I did know, I would be legally barred from discussing them.

But assume, for arguments sake, that the license terms for the specification is incompatible with the GPL (again, I don't know if it is incompatible, and if I did know, it would be illegal for me to tell you). Now, assume that any member of the Samba team saw the specification, under any conditions.

What would happen? The license terms may be such that Microsoft could go to court and demand that the Samba team cease distributing Samba. If the court agreed, Samba would be pulled from all public servers, and any future development on Samba would cease.

Now, like I said, I have no idea if the license terms are written like this. And, if I did know, it would be illegal for me to tell you.

I'm just saying that it's possible that simply by anyone on the Samba team looking at the spec, Microsoft might have ammunition to shutdown Samba development. But just because it's possible, that doesn't make it true. But if it was true, it would be illegal for me to tell you.

--
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Re:Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: by pmz · 2002-10-17 02:02 · Score: 2

Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...

Even more amazing is their brilliance in manipulating the system. Microsoft is like the witty bully in the playground that always twists what you say to make you look stupid in front of your friends. I can only imagine how frustrating this is to everyone close to the Justice Dept.'s case. Me, it just pisses me off.

Today's article is just another reason to advocate the marginalized competition out there: Apple, Linux, BSD, commercial UNIX (Solaris, AIX, IRIX, etc.), and any promising upstarts. So far, Microsoft has crushed the upstarts outright. That needs to change.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

why don't they have an extention interface by the_2nd_coming · 2002-10-16 12:31 · Score: 2

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

1.Use proprietary comm protocol 2.? 3.profit(more) by stackdump · 2002-10-16 12:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

GPL misunderstood again by deblau · 2002-10-16 12:45 · Score: 5, Informative

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

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.

Re:GPL misunderstood again by the+gnat · 2002-10-16 13:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
Re:GPL misunderstood again by glwtta · 2002-10-16 21:32 · Score: 2

I used to think so too, in fact you can apparently just flat out charge for the software, it's the sources that you have to provide at cost. Mind you, my info is based on hearing Loic Dachary talk about it recently; I'm guessing he should know.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

Re:competition is *good* by MORTAR_COMBAT! · 2002-10-16 12:48 · Score: 2

and someone cant make a closed source app based on Winelib

that would be the point. the SAMBA team has worked their ass off reverse-engineering the windows protocol. why would they want anyone to be allowed to build off their work, close the source, and start selling what is essentially the SAMBA team's work?

--
MORTAR COMBAT!

Re:1.Use proprietary comm protocol 2.? 3.profit(mo by pizza_milkshake · 2002-10-16 12:52 · Score: 2

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.

Re:competition is *good* by oh · 2002-10-16 12:56 · Score: 2

that would be the point. the SAMBA team has worked their ass off reverse-engineering the windows protocol. why would they want anyone to be allowed to build off their work, close the source, and start selling what is essentially the SAMBA team's work?

Hats off to the Samba team for reverse engineering SMB/CIFS, they have done an excelent job. I don't want to diss them in any way, they have done so much.

But they are not there yet. Unless the latest version has improved A LOT they are no where near full compatibility. Its great for most things, but there are still several points that make SAMBA not quite sit right in a NT4/NT5(.1) environment. I'm sure samba could be improved with access to these specifications.

--
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.

One Fact Wrong (That we know of) by blazerw11 · 2002-10-16 12:59 · Score: 2

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

Okay, this is just WRONG by Janthkin · 2002-10-16 13:00 · Score: 2

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*

Slap in the face by dh003i · 2002-10-16 13:08 · Score: 2

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

Re:Slap in the face by dh003i · 2002-10-16 13:57 · Score: 2

Actually, Bill Gates doesn't own more than 50% of the stock at MS. If it were split up, he'd own a significant share of each little baby-MicroSoftlet, but not a majority interest.

The point is that the little MSlets would be competitors, and wouldn't be able to coroborate to lock competitors out via cartels. Cartels almost always fall out due to the greed of certain members who can gain greatly by breaking the agreement.

As for Bill Gates losing all his money, that will happen when he dies. Greedy fuck, if he were dead, everyone in India could buy themselves a real meal. Think about this as something to chew on: if Bill Gates died, every person in the world could get 15 dollars.

Does anyone really deserve to be that rich? Is he really that much smarter, harder-working, etc, than the rest of us?

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Re:Slap in the face by dh003i · 2002-10-16 14:18 · Score: 2

Easy to give your money to charity when you have no children, and no real family.

Also, simply giving money to charity doesn't justify immoral business practices.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

Oh the mainstream press... by coupland · 2002-10-16 13:13 · Score: 2

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...'

Re:Not fair! by donutello · 2002-10-16 13:28 · Score: 3, Informative

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

It's amazing... by Eric+Damron · 2002-10-16 13:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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!

Re:It's amazing... by sconeu · 2002-10-16 17:41 · Score: 2

on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms

Well, sure, Your Honor, we won't discriminate against anyone who pays our reasonable price of ONE MILLION DOLLARS (pinky to mouth!)!!!!!

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Why should they bother? by PotatoHead · 2002-10-16 13:33 · 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...

Re:If every other company refuses to agree? by janda · 2002-10-16 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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).

Speaking for myself by anomaly · 2002-10-16 13:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Charging for protocol specs??? by glenebob · 2002-10-16 13:55 · 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.

Thwarting the spirit of the judgement by erroneus · 2002-10-16 13:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:Thwarting the spirit of the judgement by Alsee · 2002-10-16 23:04 · Score: 2

If the judge says "release it"

The only thing that judge has said so far is be back here on such-and-such a date for our next session.

Right now Microsoft is "complying" with a proposed settlement with the DOJ. This settlement is what Microsoft WANTS the penalty to be.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:And the problem is...this! by NortWind · 2002-10-16 14:09 · Score: 2, Informative

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?

GPL bars payment by Bytal · 2002-10-16 14:10 · Score: 2

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

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-16 14:16 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Perhaps more importantly... by SN74S181 · 2002-10-16 14:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Of course, since it's somebody with the name 'OddWeapon' who made the correction, it has about as much credibility as any other uncooraborated fact posted in a comment on this site...

Possible explanation... by Terralthra · 2002-10-16 14:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

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...

Industry Standard? by Maltese+Falcon · 2002-10-16 14:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

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!

GPL: the wood stake by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-16 15:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:GPL: the wood stake by mikefoley · 2002-10-17 03:10 · Score: 2

That's a great idea, too bad it'll never happen. DEC found out a number of years ago that MS had co-opted a fair amount of DEC IP. They (Bob Palmer, then CEO of DEC and his happy band of lawyers) worked out a "deal" between Microsoft and DEC. It was called the "Alliance for Enterprise Computing" DEC got "most favoured company status" in return for not suing the pants off of Microsoft. Such a deal!

As you can imagine, with DEC gone, that agreement is null and void.

Oh, and DEC/CPQ/HP will NEVER GPL VMS. It makes too much money.

Former VMS Development Group system manager,

--
What's my Karma Mr. Burns? "Excellent"

Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by jbn-o · 2002-10-16 15:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

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

Re:Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by nagora · 2002-10-16 20:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue.
In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.
In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by jbn-o · 2002-10-18 05:02 · Score: 2

In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.

The only restriction the GNU GPL places on how much you can charge to distribute GPL-covered software has to do with distributing binaries without the corresponding complete source code. I'm not sure what you mean by "charging Microsoft's royalty to their users", but everyone operates under the same terms with GPL-covered software. Whether anyone would pay that fee is a completely separate market issue. The article I pointed to before has laid this out very clearly.

I believe you are reading something into the Washington Post quote that wasn't there. The Washington Post article made no distinction between kinds of payments. They clearly said "[the GNU GPL] bars any payment". For the Washington Post, all payments are the same and all are disallowed under the GNU GPL. It is unfortunate the Washington Post writers and editors did not even read the GNU GPL FAQ which would have shown them their interpretation is incorrect.

In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.

The GPL's terms on distributing GPL-covered works for a fee do not change for "payments to third parties".

--
Digital Citizen
Re:Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) by nagora · 2002-10-18 22:03 · Score: 2

The only restriction the GNU GPL places on how much you can charge to distribute GPL-covered software has to do with distributing binaries without the corresponding complete source code.
This is not true. The GPL means that you can not make charging a condition of allowing others to redistribute the code since this would make the software "not free" (in either sense).
Microsoft in this case are charging per copy for their super-secret protocol. If I release some software based on this, I have to pay them. If I release the software under the GPL I would not be allowed by the GPL to force the recipient to pay Microsoft. At that point MS sets the law on me.
The Washington Post article made no distinction between kinds of payments. They clearly said "[the GNU GPL] bars any payment".
Your selective quote demonstrates why I chose to make a lengthy quote in my original post. In the context of the WP's discussion of the effects of Microsoft charging a royalty it is not clear that they mean what you seem to want them to mean.
The GPL's terms on distributing GPL-covered works for a fee do not change for "payments to third parties".
They don't but they make it impossible to comply with third party demands that every copy MUST incur a cost. You can not match the freedom of the GPL up with a legally enforced demand for restrictions from a third party, it just doesn't work.
Put it this way: explain to me how GPL'd software can be released such that Microsoft's legal requirement that they are paid for every copy of the software can be fulfilled in any reasonable way that would stop a court from finding that you had breached their copyright.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"

"Bars any payment" NOT FUD by QuantumG · 2002-10-16 15:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Yet another misleading /. head by lseltzer · 2002-10-16 15:13 · Score: 2

The Washington Post article is not about criticizing settlement compliance, it's about criticism of the settlement.

Re:Sounds like our president.... by Jherico · 2002-10-16 15:22 · Score: 2

At the risk of going (further) off-topic, I was not attempting to evaluate the moral stance of my own government. I personally do not support war war in Iraq and am not a fan of my president. I was merely trying to draw a parallel between what I perceieve as two evils.

It makes me wonder exactly what kind of mindset it take to stand there and lie like that. Is it self-delusion, or are they standing there with the proverbial smoking gun in their hand and a stupid smirk on their face saying 'What violations?' because they know the opposition is too much of a pussy to punch them in the face when they deny it.

--

Jherico

What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

We (USA) need to make them start over by BroadbandBradley · 2002-10-16 15:59 · Score: 2

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

Stop the presses! by Alien+Being · 2002-10-16 16:10 · Score: 2

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 by account_deleted · 2002-10-16 16:14 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

When moderation fails. by oh · 2002-10-16 17:46 · Score: 2

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.

Because ... by AftanGustur · 2002-10-16 17:59 · Score: 2

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. by Futurepower(R) · 2002-10-16 18:06 · Score: 2

It was probably just Slashdot effect. The link is working now.

Mafiasoft. Where do you want to pay today? by rice_burners_suck · 2002-10-16 18:25 · Score: 2

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... by tlambert · 2002-10-16 18:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re: So how come we're not bombing Microsoft? by SgtChaireBourne · 2002-10-16 18:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

But Bill knows that it might come to that to enforce the court's decisions. So he's dug himself in with a windowless, underground bunker and started arming himself. ;)

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.

I hope the judge read my submission by Paul+Johnson · 2002-10-16 20:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was one of the people who sent in comments under the Tunny act. You can find them in the list of 47 selected comments. In it I wrote:

Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they inevitabley reveal the full details of their operation to any programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from using that interface, since to do so would reveal the "secret" of its operation. This appears to have been the objective of the click-through license on the Kerberos extensions (see above). The "Samba" project (www.samba.org) has reverse-engineered the Microsoft file and printer sharing protocols, allowing non-Microsoft systems to gain access to resources on Microsoft systems. An updated version of Samba for Windows 2000 is being prepared which will need to inter-operate with the Windows 2000 Kerberos extensions. If these extensions are considered trade secrets then it would be impossible for the Samba project to work with these extensions, and a key component in any mix of Microsoft and non-Microsoft computers would be crippled.

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.

Courts do get it eventually by werdna · 2002-10-16 23:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-17 00:23 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-17 01:06 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good for you, but by Arker · 2002-10-17 01:38 · Score: 2

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.

We have weapons of mass destruction! by Jagasian · 2002-10-17 02:42 · Score: 2

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.

Saddam is a twit, not a terrorist by 0x0d0a · 2002-10-17 03:38 · Score: 2

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

Re:Saddam is a twit, not a terrorist by 0x0d0a · 2002-10-17 08:58 · Score: 2

You mean other than the fact that we don't run out and save lives in other countries (where we have no economic ties) where people are being massacred?

And the fact that France and Russia, which have strong economic relationships with Iraq, were serious opponents of the bombing, was just coincidence?

Countries go to war over resources, not because they're nice, kind, and altruistic.

--
May we never see th
Re:Saddam is a twit, not a terrorist by EvilAlien · 2002-10-17 08:59 · Score: 2

Please note: "Saddam and terrorism", not Saddam the terrorist.
My tongue-in-cheek comment wasn't meant to imply that Saddam = terrorism. Whatever the reasons Bush wants to bombs the bejesus out of Baghdad may be, I would rather see that money spent on something that is arguably national security related than beating down a monopoly. I like free enterprise, and the US government spends too much time and effort trying to control Microsoft, IMO.
I'd rather see a competant competitor beat them down. Of course the trick is getting a competant/powerful competitor capable of doing so. Microsoft wouldn't be where they are without the cooperation of other companies, so you can't just blame Microsoft. Maybe the whole system is corrupt and doesn't work... but Linux itself is proof that not even Microsoft can eliminate all competition and external innovation. Time will tell if Microsoft can maintain their stranglehold on the desktop market, but we'll never know if they would have been brought down without the government interfering.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'

Re:Not happy with Settlement, but Glad I have Win by ncc74656 · 2002-10-17 04:32 · Score: 2

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;-).

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.

Simple Solution by nanojath · 2002-10-17 06:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why is the damn government failing us so badly? Well, here's a little hint: notice how, every year, the amounts of money spent on elections gets bigger.

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

Re:Another solution? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · 2002-10-17 06:59 · Score: 2

"Whats the reason this type of solution doesnt exist already and everybody is running after Microsofts shitty closed protocoll / NDA-enabled sucker solution?"

I'm glad you asked that.

The reason is...... NDA's of course :-) :-).

In order to produce client redirector code for Microsoft clients you need to get access to API's that are not available without an NDA.

Do you begin to see the chicken and egg here.... :-) :-).

Cheers,

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-17 07:24 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-17 07:36 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dodging... by 4of12 · 2002-10-17 10:09 · Score: 2

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."

Re:Microsoft employees are cult like? by Malcontent · 2002-10-17 15:39 · Score: 2

" I've never seen any community that's closer to a cult than the linux community"

Apparently you have never hung out at the MS campus.

"Be honest, if Father Linus told you to fly a plane in MS headquarters you'd do it, wouldn't you?"

No and he would not. He is not an evil person. Something that can't be said for Bill Gates.

--

War is necrophilia.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-10-18 00:20 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Important Note by greenrd · 2002-10-18 01:45 · Score: 2

Standard Copyright Law (DMCA's "circumvention devices" clauses excepted) does not apply to data. It only applies to a specific representation of data. Thus, by rewriting the descriptions of the protocols in their own words with their own formatting, the original leaker may or may not be in violation, but further leakers in the chain after that will not be doing anything illegal, since the rewritten documentation would be intended to be freely distributed and none of the distributors except the original one agreed anything with MS.

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 by account_deleted · 2002-10-18 07:53 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not fair! by belroth · 2002-10-18 11:30 · Score: 2

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?

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890:

SECTION 2 Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

Things have changed, maybe it's not a felony any more? How about

Clayton Anti-Trust Act October 15, 1914

SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

When did it stop being unlawful? .

--
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

226 of 516 comments (clear)