Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized
Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team."
microsoft finds a way to keep closed even when told to open up
..... only to certain [*wink* *wink*] customers"
RIGHT .... SURE ......
is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the whole "we are going to release our source
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
Of course Microsoft understands that -- they're not idiots. The problem is the Justice Department didn't understand that (they are idiots), which is why they went along with Microsoft's absurd agreement. The question is whether the Court understands that -- let's hope the Judge groks this and at least tightens up the terms of the agreement.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
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.
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.
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"
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.
(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.
Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, since:Damn.
Jouster
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,
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.
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.
I know myself as a WINE and ReactOS developer I dont even look at anything besides http://msdn.microsoft.com and am just waiting on the day for them to try and attach a EULA to that. The next thing they will try and do is go after WINE and Mingw for cloning the Win32 headers even though that information is covered under Fair Use.
.NETs Windows.Forms is still for the most part a portable Win32. Mabey the Mono project will have luck with Mono+WINE to reimplement Windows.Forms and we can really start moving people off of Windows once .NET apps are common.
More then EVER the FreeSoftware/Linux Nutz need to start supporting WINE/Mingw/ReactOS and Samba so we can compeate with M$ before they gain more control with DRM/Palladium.
I guess we should just be happy
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
The problem is that they're circumventing the restrictions imposed on them. How are we supposed to know if they have non-discriminatory license terms if we have to sign an NDA just to see those terms? If they were discriminatory, we then couldn't tell anyone...
There's nothing to stop them from giving different terms to differnt folks in secret (remember those OEM licenses?) and simply bypassing the law.
It's TOTALLY wrong, IMO. There just isn't a good excuse for this; it makes them look like they're covering something up (and it wouldn't be the first time, according to the findings of fact in this case!)
The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Of course and it was M$'s choice to publish them as part of their settlement with the DOJ .... it's the throwing up of silly barriers to make those settlements meaningless that people are complaining about
Open Source Developer:
Ok, Mr. Gates, you will sell me the protocol specs. How much?
Microsoft Rep:
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Sign this NDA instead.
I'm not trying to be a rabid anti-Microsoft here. They are in business, and they are entitled to make money from their work. From a legal standpoint, they have acted illegally, and were told to behave better. Are they really behaving better?
Another point
If they acted illegally, and to make up for that illegal behaviour, they had to level the playing field up a bit. Linux (along with apple) is one of two main competitors. So they release the protocol specs under a license that effectively prohibits its use in Linux. Hmmm.
Just another viewpoint. I'm not here to karma whore, but it does make you think.
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
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
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
This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.
Sigs are bad for your health.
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."
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!
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
Or am I wrong?
I think you are wrong - and here is why:
*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
Personally its not God I dislike, its his fan club I cant stand (bash.org)
As much as I think what MS is doins is wrong, I dont think that "get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do" will do you any good. One of the major problems with this country is too much leagelise, IMHO. People want everything enumerated out, to extream lengths. I understand why to a certain extent you would want things listed out(you need this to do this, you need that to do that...), but there is a certain point where this becomes counterproductive. Your listing everything out the way you want is just going to add to this problem. Also, once you start listing things out when are you goign to stop? And does that mean anything that is not listed does not matter? Finaly, that is not a game that I think you can win against MS. They have the money and the lawyers. If you want to get nit picky they will probably come out on top.
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
> Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.
So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
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.
Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...
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.
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...
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...
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?
For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.
That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
From the article:
This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.
Because they use Windows, and it'd be silly to bomb something that already crashes incessantly. Seems like a waste of explosives to me.
"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.
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
"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.
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.
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.