Microsoft Can't DRM Docs Fast Enough

grcumb writes "As part of the DoJ Anti-trust settlement, Microsoft was ordered to provide freely available documentation for its communications protocols. InfoWorld is reporting that not only are they late in delivering the required APIs, but it's because they want to convert everything to the read-only Web Archive (MHT) format, which can only be viewed in MSIE. InfoWorld reports that, "In July, Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn, a season generally reckoned to include the months of September, October and November in North America, but may now have to extend work on a beta or test version of the new documentation into December...." So we have to wait longer for a format that makes the content harder for developers (developers! developers!) to use. Maybe they didn't read the documentation ..."

Comments

MHTML is RFC 2557

[RupW]

RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML)

There's a Mozilla KB entry about MHTML support and open bugs for load and save (IDs 18764 and 40873; bugzilla won't accept links from Slashdot). Plus the maf extension to support MHTML.

Re:MHTML is RFC 2557

[acvh]

Using compound documents isn't the problem here, it's what the compound documents ARE; one is the documentation, the other is a "publishing license" which is used to encrypt the documentation, and is only usable by the IE Rights Management add-on.

Re:MHTML is RFC 2557

[FuzzyDaddy]

If the SDK is binary library files compiled against an MS operating system, with licensing which is incompatible with the Mozilla Public License, then it is far from free or open.

Just because you don't pay money, doesn't mean it's free.

The reason is simple...

[reynaert]

Microsoft's policy is that all downloadable documents and specifications etc. should be signed, so you can verify that the document hasn't been tampered with. Usually they implement that by embedding a word document in an (signed) Windows executable. MHT seems to be an improvement.

Re:DRM, What?!

[acvh]

" I'm not sure what the article is talking about" - then READ it. You would find the following:

from Microsoft: "The Web application puts both the encrypted .mht file and the signed publishing license into a file called a compound file. This file, which has an .rmh file extension, is used by the Rights Management Add-on for Internet Explorer to permit viewing of RMS-protected content in Internet Explorer. For more information, see Compound Files. You can use your own format if you are not using the add-on."

Re:Didnt RTFA, but

[antiMStroll]

Typical pro-Microsoft troll moderation. From the article you didn't bother to RTF:

"The plaintiffs have three main areas of concern about the documentation.

First among these is that Microsoft, asked to open up and document the interfaces to its communication protocols for licensees, has chosen to issue the documentation in a rights-protected file format called MHT, readable only with its own Web browser, Internet Explorer. This means licensees can neither annotate nor effectively search the information, according to the plaintiffs. "

Re:Didnt RTFA, but

[AstroDrabb]

You didn't RTFA, you spew bunk and get modded "Insightful". You gotta love /.

The DRM is not the compression part. The files are encrypted. If you DID RTFA, you would have read:

First among these is that Microsoft, asked to open up and document the interfaces to its communication protocols for licensees, has chosen to issue the documentation in a rights-protected file format called MHT, readable only with its own Web browser, Internet Explorer. This means licensees can neither annotate nor effectively search the information, according to the plaintiffs.

And that MS is offering a

free software development toolkit for the digital rights management system

The problem with this dev toolkit is that it is MS only, so that means no Linux, Mac, *BSD or Solaris for the DRM of these MHT files. These documents are for developers who may want to interact with MS's proprietary communications protocols, and some of them may be working on different OSes to make those other OSes use MS's proprietary communications protocols. Now they will be forced to use MS windows to get to the documentation.

Re:GAHHHH!!!

[Shimbo]

Bug 18764 has 73 votes and many duplicates, which makes it fairly popular. It isn't the the most voted-for bug though; some have well over 100 votes.

bug 40873 (Save As MHTML) has 180, so it's a top 10 bug.

Re:GAHHHH!!!

[Darkenole]

You might try the MAF extension to Firefox.

"This is an archive extension that allows complete web pages to be saved in a single archive file. MAF stands for Mozilla Archive Format and the extension uses RDF to save page meta-data such as the original URL of the page and the date/time the page was put in the archive. It also allows pages to be saved in a separate MHTML compatible format for interoperability with IE systems."

Re:GAHHHH!!!

[Proteus]

You might try the MAF extension to Firefox.

Which can be installed from here (XPI)

Re:I'm not a developer

[hunterx11]

Programming for classic MacOS was hard. Programming for NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP was easy. Programming for OS X is easy. Certain the implementation of Cocoa isn't given away, but the interface and excellent documentation is. Besides, with protocols and categories it is often unnecessary to subclass objects, thus making understand them less necessary. It's also nice that GUI code is unnecessary in most circumstances.

Re:More difficult to use? & Rehtoric = NOISE

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What's so difficult about a read-only format?

There is nothing wrong with a read-only format. There is a problem with the read-only format they have chosen. "Freely available" were the words used in the instructions. These documents can only be viewed in IE with a special plug-in from MS. IE runs on 2 platforms, Windows and MacOS (sort of). MS has deprecated the mac version, leaving Windows the only actively maintained platform for reading this documentation. Windows costs money.

If I complied with a court order to provide documentation, by putting the documents in a safe deposit box and offering to sell people copies of the key, I'd be rotting in a cell by now. Bill Gates should spend at least one night in the lock-up for this crap.

mod me down for growsing but this was a story

[museumpeace]

on AP back on the 9th and in more obscure places like Hiese.de and North Country times:

2004.10.10: "Feds knock Microsoft footdragging disclosure"
North Country Times, reported Friday that the Justice Department and the states that brought the anti-trust action against Microsoft are now complaining that: "... the company's current plan "significantly limits the practical usability" of the information Microsoft was compelled to reveal to its competitors." The basis of the complaint is that Microsoft plans to issue the information in the MHT format which is proprietary to Microsoft and only readable via a Microsoft browser. This story was not widely carried and I actually ran across it in heise.de while struggling with the fishy translation of the German story on plans impose user fees on PCs hooked to the internet.