Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers to License the Internet
NW writes "According to an eWeek story Microsoft is beginning to assert IP rights over 130 protocols including many basic Internet protocols including TCP/IP, DNS, etc. The story originates with a mailing list post to the IETF's IPR list."
This one was probably started by a intern lawyer at MS who's trying to impress his boss with "Look what I can do!"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Bye!
SeqBox
...and Microsoft.
Perfect!
The Horsemen are drawing nearer,
On Law suits they ride,
They come to take your LIFE!
... and, more importantly, where do I input my credit card number? Microsoft worked hard for every patent they invented and deserve a right to protect it and earn financial reward for it... NOT!
MS seems to have caught SCO disease.
Just as I thought we were running out of good SCO comedy, Microsoft steps up to the plate to deliver some good wholesome hearty laughs. gg MS.
...is this a suprise? A mega-corporation trying to make money by expanding it's IP portfolio. I'm not sure what is worse, the fact that I'm responding to a story about how Microsoft is trying to invade into another part of my life, or the fact that someone else has decided that they have a better reason to "own" the Internet...
Maybe they will be patenting their idea of setting the QOS on all packets to realtime, thereby making the whole damn thing useless.
Douglas P. Price
However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.
notice the "under whatever rights" bit.
And I thought the purpose of intellectual property was to encourage innovation. With talented people now forced to investigate potential issues, I can't see how IP does anything but slow progress. Time for revision?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I for one submit to our new MS Internet overlords.
When MS offers something, beware !
When MS offers something FOR FREE , run !
And unfortunately, this time, most of us have no place to hide.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
First Leo Szilard, then Amazon, now Microsoft
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Microsoft is certainly a huge, powerful organization, but there is no way in hell they can prove they have IP rights to protocols that existed long before the company did.
In other news, these guys in the article keep saying "appears to be," i.e., they could very well be spewing forth some FUD of their own.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
oh my god....is it possible to book permanent passage on Richard Branson's first space trip? This is ridiculous.....
SCO doesn't have a deeeeeeeep pocket, MS does !
SCO doesn't have a huuuuugggeee influence over Uncle Sam, MS does !!
In fact, MS is more powerful than
MPAA, RIAA and RedSox combined !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
This is totally insane, isn't anyone going to stop MS from doing this?
TCP/IP, DNS etc are open standards created to be used by anyone and should be kept away from being crippled by legal patents.
I guess it's time for something more radical than an online petition...
There seem to be a lot of rumours, but no real evidence that Microsoft will pursue this action. Getting control of TCP/IP as a protocol is a near-impossible challenge, even for Microsoft.
As another have pointed out, they could patent IP routing algoritms, but I think most of the apocalyptic vision predicted by this story is rather unlikely to ever happen.
At least, I hope so!
But I thought AL Gore invented the Internet? I hope he sues Microsoft.
Not the Quote of the Day Protocol as well!
We are all doomed now.
(subj sezs it all..)
Being the canny Scot that I am, I have used my inate ingenuity and now all my computers at home are linked together using TTCPS. Yes Two Tin Cans and a Piece of String networking is the way forward.
I have already spoken to Linus T. who will be imlementing TTCPS in kernel 2.8, but I have released some modules which can be compiled into kernels 2.4 and 2.6 right now. Those of us on BSD can try the Two Steel Cans and a Piece of Cord (TSCPC) protocol but I'm not sure about compatability.
I've also received a letter from SCO's lawyers claiming that the string I used was from their own private ball and I should cease and desist. To counter this I am using twine spun by my own mother from the wool of our own sheep. I still maintain that the string I was using was just like any other piece of string and as SCO has been unable to specify what length they have missing I am not too worried.
Some geeks over at www.ttcpsgeek.org have been experimenting with High-Tensile string and have achieved remarkable increases in bandwidth - expect this to be ported back into TTCPSv2, due for release at the end of February.
..because M$ wasn't even the publishers of most of the protocols.
For example, take the "Character Generator Protocol" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0864.txt, which was posted by Mr. Postel on May 1983 without any restrictions for usage and/or modification.
And AFAIK Postel never did work for Microsoft and never sold his rights to them.
I didn't take a look at the other protocols yet, i i guess it's the same story for most, if not all, of them...
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
A while ago I read a story about how Microsoft sees it self now as a mature company and that they wanted to play fair from now on. I was thinking "Yeah, right!" back then, but this story goes to show that old Redmond still takes every chance to stick other peoples ideas to their own crown (wich was of course a direct translation of a german saying, couldn't think of a fitting american phrase).
I just hope they won't be successful. They wouldn't be trying if there wasn't a chance of winning. Don't forget, Microsoft is not SCO.
I sit here using my Mac, open the MS page listing all the protocols that MS wants you to sign a licence agreement for, and lo and behold I see that Apple File Protocol is the first on that list. I think Apple might have some fun with it's lawyers on this one.
I also wonder just how arrogant, dumb and just plainly disconnected from reality you have to be to start licencing protocols that Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with, such as DNS, DHCP, TCP/IP etc.
And the microsofties on this board wonder why people refer to MS as M$ or slam the company constantly.
MS is a bunch of criminal bastards. Fuck them and may they burn in fucking hell.
Boy is Al Gore gonna be pissed when he heards that microsoft is trying to steal his thunder. Those bastards!
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Not only are their legal precedents shaky (to say the least), they didn't even bother to check their facts very well. For one thing, they refer to the "ping" program as "Packet Internet Groper (ping)". This meaning of the program's name is a well-known backronym of the original meaning which the author of ping stated had to do with the similarity to submarines.
Maybe this is a hint as to how much actual investigative work they have put into this spectacle.
In other news, Al Gore sued Microsoft for infringing his IP on creating the internet.
Underholdning.info
Another liberal leaning Microsoft bashing headline brought to you by none other than the great unwashed Linux fanboy hippie and John Kerry fluffer, Micheal.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
I seriously hope that the submitter is just very wrong.
This just shows how _insane_ europe would be to recognise any patents. I can't believe they're even considering it - it would absolutely ruin the independent european computing industry, and make us all microserfs. If you're in europe, it is absolutely essential that you make it clear software patents will not be tolerated. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you're being ruled, that you are subjects of the eurocracy - we ARE european CITIZENS. We must govern the government. We must not let a tiny minority of ultra-rich mostly-americans declare that they own applied discrete mathematics ("computer science") and we are their subjects by their proxies in the EPO.
And of course, when yet another of MS' asinine patents is discussed, the shills come out of the woodwork bleating the corporate line "Microsoft is only interested in using their IP defensively!".
I completely fail to see how this can ever be used for anything but to harass competitors. Not surprising, since this strategic direction was already outlined in a 1998 memo.
So this ought to shut up the MS shills for awhile (unfortunately, there is a large divide between 'ought' and 'will').
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
This is just pathetic. A guy who has "envisioned" the Internet in the second edition of his autobiography, Bill Gates, licenses the Internet protocols. Does Tim Bernards Lee license HTTP and HTML? NO! Does Bill Gates? Yes! This is utterly pathetic.
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
http://neokosmos.blogsome.com
November 5, 2004
Has Microsoft been trying to retroactively claim IP (intellectual property) rights over many of the Internet's basic protocols? Larry J. Blunk, senior engineer for networking research and development at Merit Network Inc., believes that might be the case.
[...]
I am not found of M$ like the next slashdotter, but, before 'we' start bashing M$ ... lets do it after we know the _facts_ :)
I mean,
Microsoft Offers to License the Internet
- vs
Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet?is a big difference, that awards 'caution, biased story alert'.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Title of parent-post:
Before the M$ Bashing Begins
WTF? you sound as if you approve of patents on algorithms/software.
By the way, even if they did patent algorithms used in TCP/IP, then they've only got the American and Japanese part of the internet. Not (yet) the European part.
- -- Truth addict for life.
Microsoft disgusts me, I thought it was common knowledge that Unix was written for networking, while Windows and Dos were originally standalone operating systems. Windows even contains some BSD code for their networking protocols. I hope no one is foolish enough to get the license. Knowledge should be free.
maybe I ought to have 'hold my horses' too a little bit before pressing the submit-button :-)
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
I think the level of implied evilness in this matter is overplayed. Microsoft aren't denying that these standards are not exactly theirs exclusively to play around with.
Reading the FAQ, it looks more like some arcane clot of lawyers came up with this one to cover [Microsoft's|developers'] butts from ???. (can't figure out what the lawyers were trying to accomplish).
Specifically, this:
Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license?
A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.
There. They are acknowledging that you can use the protocols anyway without signing this license agreement.
Strange move, but not evil if I read things properly.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
Lets just up and hand Microsoft the keys to the Internet. So every other company that has invested even one dollar in internet infrastructure or internet-capable programs will lose a lot of money from whatever Microsoft will do with it. Then, all these said companies can sue Microsoft (not a class action, individual cases) and they will absolutely slashdot Microsoft's legal funds. Once that's done, they'll have to tap into their reserves. If these companies can bare their chests to such financial loss and paperwork, Microsoft would be wiped out. Someone could take the things that Microsoft sealed up, and free them. Unfortunately, someone would claim them for themselves, much like a certain human claimed the Ring.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
And don't intend to.
Just think for one second: most goverments around the world have been pushing heavily for initiatives to use the Interent as part of the day to day dealings with the populace (the UK's gov has a Web portal, the easiest way to pay your taxes is via a website for example).
Would MS be so monumentally stupid as to want to make itself the enemy of the freeworld (and the unfree parts as well)?
Ballmer and Gates may be egotistical megalomaniacs, but frankly they ar not stupid.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We've all been waiting for MS to start fighting with patents.
It is their last resort against a better product.
It has been reported here that the man primarily responsible for "productizing" IBM's patent portfolio went to microsoft to do the same thing a couple of years ago. So far, we've seen silly little things like attempting to patent the FAT32 format on flash devices, but nothing really used as an offensive weapon.
Ironically, our best hope of defeating Microsoft in the patent arena is IBM, and to a lesser extent, Novell. Both companies have significant patent portfolios that can be used as a retaliatory threat to MS for trying to lock-out Free software with their patents. Both companies have been hurt badly enough by MS in the past, but are currently stable enough that they aren't likely to make deals either (like Sun did).
Personally, I feel that the whole idea of patent portfolios and all encompassing cross-licensing agreements is an abuse of the patent system because it locks out the little guy. But, in this particular fight we don't have a hope of achieving patent reform soon enough (if ever), so we might as well be glad that we have a few big guns on our side.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
...A wise man (I don't remember who - perhaps Mark Twain?) said once "Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence"
I suspect incompetence here. However, it is important that Microsoft are corrected on this issue.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Okay, off the topic, but relevant to the site.
This site just managed to sneak a pop under through and then crash FireFox on me. Has anyone else had the same problem?
Cogito, ergo sig.
This is part of the DOJ settlement requiring Microsoft to license communications protocols essential for 3rd party software/operating systems to interoperate with Windows. No matter how stupid, trivial, or ancient, they're required to license them.
l =/library/en-us/randz/protocol/published_protocols _and_royalty-free_license_faq.asp):
And now they have.
From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur
Q. When I sign a royalty-free agreement for these protocols, what am I licensing?
A. The list of protocols under this license includes protocols for which documentation has been published, and that Microsoft has implemented in Windows client operating systems to interoperate with Windows server operating systems (up to and including Windows Server 2003). However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.
OK, this is mildly humurous and rather ominous at first appearances, but has the richest man in the US ceased listening to his corporate attorneys?
Bill seems to have forgotten about a "small thing" called DARPA and their creation, DARPAnet, which was the forerunner to the Internet.
Any judge who is worth half his paycheck will refuse to hear this case on the grounds of extreme frivolosity. (See mom, I made a new word!)
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
When you sign an agreement with Microsoft, you are giving legal control over your self and your company in ways that, in this case, cannot be understood completely in advance.
For example, take the "Character Generator Protocol" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0864.txt, which was posted by Mr. Postel on May 1983 without any restrictions for usage and/or modification.
There are few years in which anyone can file a petent even if the idea was already published by someone else. In other words, prior art has to be older than a patent by X years. (Anyone knows how many years it is exacly?)
However kewel and ubiquitous the practice may be it is grammatical nonesense to make an assertion and attempt to negate it by tagging "NOT" onto the end. It makes me wince every time I witness the English language being butchered thus.
Interesting to see that amongst the list of protocols on the page (including Appletalk, ATM and HTTP), Microsoft is also kindly allowing us to licence the valuable discard protocol. The protocol that accepts data and immediately loses it.
So Microsoft did invent that concept then.
I for one will welcome the day we can read a story about how Slashdot editors have finally decided to read the text of the submissions, and at least scan the contents of the offered links.
Second off, before everyone starts ripping on evil corporations and patents... let's not forget that the evil Government creates the environment that breeds bacterial scum like SCO.
In other words, engage in some activism. Help out the EFF, fight software patents in Europe, do whatever it takes to stop this problem at the source: Evil Government...
..a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have...
...royalty free but (perhaps partially) restricting and confusing license...
Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe? If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what? Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols? And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
Perhaps MS should have named it a
Did he inhale?
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Linux (a $699 value) + the Internet (a $699 value)
for just $1000.
grab it now. Brought to you by MS+SCO. Your friends who own your soul.
Sounds like someone at Microsoft has had a rush of blood to the head. Someone should tell them that you can't own other people's work without permission.
Microsoft didn't even notice the internet until windows 95 came out.
If MS wins, the Internet as we know it will be gone in Microsoft controlled countries...
Who rightfully owns these patents?...
The US patent office has been rubber stamping so many inappropriate patents for too long that the software industry has been crippled. These patents are a joke, but not so funny when enforced. The IT industry is disolving in the US from offshoring. Offshoring is nothing compared to the possible damage from enforcement of inappropriate patents. Could this crush the economies where inappropriate patents on base (common-knowledge) IT technologies have been successfully enforced?
This brings up a new monopoly question on Microsoft (seperate from previous litigations).
"Thus, by signing the agreement as it presently stands, one might be agreeing to certain things gratuitously, meaning simply that the licensee agrees to give Microsoft continuing control over how the protocols are used," Peterson said.
This is exactly how the real world works. The worlds of politics, business, law, promotions, even employment interviews, are based on recruiting your support for agreements which can't be negotiated.
Wasn't this how BIll managed to get Microsoft's ownership of an early version of DOS for a minimal amount of money? I'd heard he got someone else to enter an agreement which recognized it as owned by Microsoft, but he hadn't actually paid anyone else that contributed to writing it (yet).
Well, and all the poor German children around the 1940s. They thought it was like playing mountaineer when they got to join Boy Scouts (or whatever the German equivalent is).
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Don't worry. Bush will stand up for us and protect us from the corportist robber-bar--- aww, we are SO screwed.
Ahh, i see. I bet anything that it's got something to do with their drm. Online content will be distributed and license to people bates on their Ip
It is clear to anyone who reads the license itself (or, if you perfer english, the FAQ) that Microsoft is not trying to claim IP ownership over *any* of the protocols listed in the license. They specifically and clearly say this a number of times in both documents.
However, that doesn't mean this is totally benign. It is classic M$ policy to require the user to license technology from them whether they plan to profit from it, or restrict usage or not; it is better, on their view, to have consumers using their technologies under only a nominal license (the terms of which may be changed later, if need be) than under no license at all. Given that M$ clearly doesn't *know* what protocols they have what rights over, it may be that they're distributing a catch-all license, in the hopes of figuring out what their rights are later and locking them down.
However, as IANAL, this raises the question of whether such a hypothetical license is binding...can you ask a user to sign a license under an IP right that neither party can identify, and that may not even exist? Given that it doesnt even specifiy what it is that the user is licensing (it only effectively says what it relates to)...can this even be considered a real license?
caritj.org
... is a marketing company first and formost. Second being a third party integrator of the works of others, if not law manipulators, making integration of the works of others in third place.
In their marketing they lie, they mislead, they present an illusion of their being something they are not, innovators. They use the law to manipulate others in the industry thru licensings and such agreements.
Numerious times they have been found guilty in a court of law for anti-trust violations and they general response is that such fines are part of the cost of doing business, as is the case of organized crime.
So when issues such as this article refers to comes up....
Facts?...... you want what?
OK!!
MS operates on illusion and their ability to fabricated it, if even just thru insinuation. And unfortunately, the public typically falls for it.
Is that fact enough for you all?
Licensing the internet is a good summary of what the general public would preceive of this, and MS knows it, and that is why they are doing it.
DUH!
They are saying: "W is still with us. Keep up bullying and trying to own the computing world. Gov is with us, we cannot lose."
Got Pike?
... when I think of Microsoft's original reluctance to do anything "TCP/IP" or internet in the first place and then their use of BSD code to make it all happen I kinda wonder...
Is the BSD licensing such a good thing after all? It's a license to leech -- a license to embrace and extend -- to take that which is ubiquitous and to own it.
I haven't read the article yet but when I read through the comments here, I get a pretty good feel for what others have read. And while Microsoft might have added tweaks to existing code, I don't think it would have been possible for them to make it happen with existing BSD licensed code for them to start off with. I've long thought it was a bad thing and now I see a pretty clear example of what I consider an abuse of it.
Hello folks! Facts: Microsoft did not claim to hold patents on these technologies. They are offering to license "any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have in regard to these technologies". Of course you may say that they has no claim. You would be right if he claimed all rights to the usage of many of these protocols, but he doesn't(at least not yet). Probably what is in mind here is that he is offering to license out the rights that have, can, or will be secured by Microsoft at some point. For example, the use of a given protocol in so far as it interacts with SQL server, or WINXP. You may have paid for XP, but did you pay for the right to connect it to the Internet? Or more specifically for the ability to have your http request processed on the IIS server run by XYZ.com In effect they are circumventing the (by now grounded to a halt) US patent system. Instead of leasing a patent, they are leasing the rights to the potential rights etc. Bottom line, they may have no rights, in which case buying the license isn't worth the paper its written on. More likely, Big Bill is using the ability to claim "Prior Art" as a defense against anyone else's claims (whether they have been made yet or not). In essence what it does is allows for his rights to be established without even filing a claim. So as long as he can claim prior art even if it was 20 years ago, he will retain his rights until 20 years from the day he files (which could be today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now if no one makes him). Anyway I drag on, sorry I just thought I'd turn this discussion back towards law. -Kraloftian
This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system. May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.
this is a legally binding agreement between microsoft and my butt.
microsoft to sign here: xxxxxx
1) my butt agrees that all smelliness and any shit emanating from it is wholly owned by microsoft.
2) i agree to give up any rights to any biological material passed though and developed by my gut which is forced out my butt.
3) should i put into my mouth any food that could cause irreparable harm to microsoft, due to the resultant stench up to 48 hours later, i agree to throw up and clear up the resultant mess.
4) i agree to regular colonic irrigation in order to indemnify microsoft against any butt-related illnesses.
5) i agree to indemnify microsoft against any costs related to "fishing out", should i fail accidentally to provide to microsoft all butt excrecations.
6) i agree that any corks or bottles purchased shall be at my own expense.
when is this shit going to end???
How do they want to license those protocols when they can't even use clean HTML?
You can check it here!
up until the point where you win ? If Microsoft chose to drag it out, they could easily bankrupt you, forcing you into a position of accepting paying a fine. Morally and legally you'd be right, the question then becomes have you enough money to prove that.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
It is not within Microsofts power to do that - so why is this document not considered fraud?
Also, MS offers no form of warranty and accepts no liability, so this licence is completely worthless in any case.
but... em' have you bothered to read the document[PDF]?
EXHIBIT A: TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION
The Licensed Technical Documentation for Licensed Protocol(s) that Licensee has chosen to license for implementation under this Agreement are indicated by check(s) in the box(es) on the left.
Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details.
[...]
especially the 2nd sentence (I quote)?
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Go read TCP/IP Illustrated, volume I, by W. Richard Stenvens (one of the best technical book I know). The term "TCP/IP" is used to speak about all "the TCP/IP protocol suite", so it is about IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP, bgp4, ospf, etc.
From the Microsoft License Agreement:
2. Enhancements and Updates
Other than any updates that Microsoft may publish at the URL location(s) for the Protocol(s) listed in Exhibit A, no other Microsoft enhancements or updates to Protocols and/or Technical Documentation are licensed under this Agreement. In the event Microsoft elects to make other such Microsoft enhancements or updates available, such enhancements or updates will only be licensed by Microsoft under a separate written agreement.
3. Licenses
3.1 Copyright License. To the extent Microsoft has copyrights in the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols , Microsoft hereby grants You a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, personal, worldwide license to make a reasonable number of complete copies of that Technical Documentation solely for use in developing Licensed Implementation(s).
3.2 Patent License. To the extent Microsoft has Necessary Claims, Microsoft hereby grants You a nonexclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicenseable, personal, worldwide license under those Necessary Claims to use the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols to:
So in English, Microsoft is not claiming ownership of anything. They are just saying that they may or may not own something but you can license it from them anyway.
Additionally, this license offers no indemnifaction. Even if you license the 130 protocols listed from Microsoft, if there is a legal challenge on a patent, Microsoft isn't going to protect you (according this this agreement).
My last point is this does not cover Microsoft extensions or as them call them "updates" to protocols. Does this mean you are licensing whatever is in the public RFC from Microsoft and their version of the technical documentation?
It's all so strange.
3rd sentence in that article ...if you want Microsoft to implement a protocol...
They're licensing and implementation, not the protocol.
For a group of people who claim to be intelligent, a lot of stupid things get posted on this site.
- Good, you've RTFA. Now go all the way and RTFL (read the f*ing license). [...]
exactly, as I've also quote the same piece of the license,[...]
- In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
Aren't we still juming our horse!?!I think we'd need to do two things, 1st) review how many of those 'protocols' M$ is partly responsible by somehow beeing one of the sponsors/developers/partners behind them - and review what ever agreement(s) there are and what they entitle M$ to do with the final protocol. 2nd) review how many of the rest of the 1st M$ isn't part of but they have asked the 'owners' to be able to make them part of the license we just read - and review what ever agreement(s) there are and what they entitle M$ to do.
then, let's 'stick it to them' for all the items/things they missed/aren't entitled to... etc.
I haven't done such a review, yet (and won't have time to do one either), but if you or someone else has time - lets do it 1st before we 'bash'. Common courtesy where I live; +plus, it would help beeing taken seriously and not come of like a 'Wacky/Looney [OSS] user'.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
Hell, if it wasn't for Al Gore, the Internet would still be Arpanet, and we'd still be damned excited that Compuserve let us email our friends on Prodigy for only 10 cents a message!
Then again, there'd be no spam or IE popups. Hmmm...
If the timing of George W Bush's toothless (where concerned with big business) Justice Department being confirmed for another 4 years had anything at all to do with this.
Naaa.... couldn't be that.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I forget which of the /*er ID/ they "own", but they are sure dropping huge broad hints about wanting it to become an internet standard so they can keep their particular part of it for use as an offensive weapon against free source software.
Thye have also hired away from IBM they guy whose task is to build up their patent portfolio, not for defensive purposes, but to become a profit center.
Microsoft true colors are visible to those who do not wear blinders or bury their head in the sand.
Infuriate left and right
Is this the MS way to get rid of Firefox and other freeware on MS Windows ? In the future, MS Windows could check aplications and run only the ones which are properly certified. Certification might require proper licensing. Ah, and what about an administrative fee for the whole procedure ? Am I having a bad dream here ?
moron. . you don't know what the fuck you are talking about do you?
People on this site are intellectually lazy.
Why can't capitalists be satisfied with making money from software development? must they kill the competition to make some more money? blocking competition is an anti capitalist act, much like a democracy which votes for a dictator in a democratic way.
Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet. He simply claimed that he helped create an economic envireonment to help foster the growth of the internet.
Rule of thumb. Allways check Snopes first.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
I have proof!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
It is a documented fact that Microsoft made plans to take over Internet (and other) protocols in order to stop Linux, Apache, and other Open Source software.
.Net authentication protocols, and so on.
In the Halloween Document, Microsoft states:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
This licensing ploy is just one of many steps that Microsoft has taken in order to achieve their goal of de-commoditizing the Internet.
Other steps include Microsoft's extended Kerberos protocols, Microsoft's patented Office XML protocols, Microsoft's secret/patented
As always, Microsoft is more akin to a crime syndicate, than to a legitimate business.
This is the 2nd /. post in recent weeks that has made my linux Moz 1.7 blink out. (Helix DNA RealPlayer, Flash 7 and Java 1.4.2 plugins). Working here for me with elinks -- but that seems a little L33T. Anyone else notice this lately or has something just gone nutty in my binary?
Is the lic. something like an ANTI GLP that sorta locks people into the MSFT/Commerical software market in the same way that GLP works to insure that "Free" code stays free?
http://www.hawknest.com/
*Real* paranoids would belive this is just a trial balloon, an attempt at Microsoft to see the sort of reaction it gets, to determine what their next moves might be in the war against the rest of the industry. ( its not just about OSS, they want the entire field to themselves )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Come on now mod-bombers, you usually mod me "overrated" not redundant. What's different today?
Stick Men
because they are 'server' softwares that connect to Microsoft clients. Considering that Apache connects 70% of the internet, this 'license' is nothing more than an attempt to restrict Apache's ability to connect with Microsoft users attempting to surf the web.
... this license is unnecessary.
SAMBA sees the threat and already given warnings about submitting patches which may contain 'offending' software.
If Microsoft begins enforcing these IP claims, (how many OpenSource projects can afford to fight a Microsoft "cease and desist" order?), they will be able to do what they couldn't do on a level playing field... defeat Apache. Do you run a Linux server at work that connects to Windows clients using SAMBA?
This license establishes a legal precedent for control of these technologies. Ask yourself, if they have no intent to later change the 'free' part of this license to require $$$, why issue the license at all? If it really doesn't matter
Don't stick your heads in the sand... It's not IF Microsoft will jam these IP claims down your throat with leagal action, only WHEN.
They have to do destroy Apache and SAMBA. Even after hundreds of 'patches' they have been unable to even reduce the number of new vulnerabilities that arise to plague Windows. It's getting so bad that Professionals are recommending folks switch from Internet Explorer to FireFox. Microsoft Word vulnerabilities are even beginning to plague OS X users. LongHorn has been emasculated and is now ShortHorn, and there is no guarantee that it will be any more secure than XP is. And it is a year or more away. Microsoft needs something to impede the success of Linux as a server in the server room and on the Internet. SCO hasn't had the desired effect. If just issuing this 'free' license which, by the way, causes the signer to give up their future rights, doesn't slow down the Linux tsunami, then a well publicized lawsuit might help. The most likely targets are, or course, Apache and SAMBA.
Did I miss something ? I though Al Gore was the guy who invented the Internet... When did he sell his patents to Microsoft ?
And I thought the purpose of intellectual property was to encourage innovation. With talented people now forced to investigate potential issues, I can't see how IP does anything but slow progress. Time for revision?
Actually, I think in this case, far more development would be done if MS actually did have patents that allowed them to control the core internet protocols.
The reaction of a lot of the internet world would be this:
1) put fist in crook of elbow and shake at microsoft
2) make a whole new spate of protocols and don't let microsoft participate (i.e., SCTP)
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
I agree that the huge number of patents on everything is pretty damn awful, soon there'll be nothing much left people can do without there being a high chance they're infringing on IP law. It's bound to breakdown at some point though, it's getting ridiculous, and not just the number there are. A lot of the (Microsoft) patents that get through, shouldn't - there are many they own where prior art exists. It's not just patents on technology in software either, I think there was a story on slashdot once about an Australian patenting the wheel, although I think that was mainly more to point out flaws in the way patents are appointed.
You can bet Al Gore's going to have something to say about that!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Is it possible that Microsoft has another agenda ?
I RTFA and the license. It looks to me that MS is trying to license the implementation of these protocol's, not the protocols themselves.
Is it possible that this licensing scheme is part of a larger future plan in anticipation of MS DRM being integrated into the hardware? Is it possible that in the future to run a MS OS or software a verifiable MS license will be needed to implement these protocols?
Don't lose sight of the fact that MS hasn't gotten to where it is by being stupid. There has to be a reason for MS to do this.
Disclaimer: I am an Art Historian and Archivist. I run a specialized research library of more than 20K original works, mostly on paper. The kind of library where you need an appointment and credentials to get in the door. Be nice.
All Your Butt Beling To Them.
;)
Point 2 makes is possible that flexible, rubber, non-biological objects will still belong.. Never mind
Privacy is terrorism.
Welcome to the patent cold war.
Eh, I just tried to RTFA, and here is what I had at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/randz/protocol/royalty_free_protoco l_license_agreement.asp :
An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.An error occurred on the server when processing the URL. Please contact the system administrator.
Yay ! We slashdotted Microsoft !
In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
Ahem. No. Microsoft is not saying they don't own any of it. They are saying the license applies to what they do own. Please continue to read the license in section 4.2a when you or Microsoft can terminate your "extremely liberal and almost nonexistant" license at any time.
The plan is to get everyone to agree to a "free" license. No reasonable person would sign a license if they didn't need to, so by signing you're admitting that whatever claims Microsoft might have are valid. Once they have a nice list, the licenses are revoked and the $$ licensing begins.
IANAL but if I can imagine it, there's a lawyer willing to take it to court.
Putting aside the Microsoft claims, they are referencing the original RFCs on a lot of them, and covering a lot of ground in this list: this would actually be an excellent resource as to finding out about different protocols.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
implementations be compliant with the technical documentation?!?! I hear Bugs Bunny: "Ha ha ha, what a moroon! Ha ha ha!!!"
If you actually execute the license agreement, you will be under all sorts of legal obligations to Microsoft that you weren't under before; for example, you need to put a notice into your software and you may be restricted in how you can sublicense it. And you get nothing from them in return because they don't actually own any of the protocols. This is not a "liberal" license, it's a license for suckers.
This license resembles the Sender-ID license and therefor makes Open Source implementations with this license very dificult. Please read the Apache Software Foundation's position regarding sender ID. Lawrence Rosen states:
Now, please have a look at the Microsoft license for these 130 protocols:Due to the similairities of the Sender ID license and this license I think, Open Source may never be able to live up to the requirements of this license. If it doesn't, it might not necessarily be at risk for litigation over whatever rights Microsoft might have, but Microsoft definitely gains the selling point of having legally unencombered implementations while Open Source has none.
As I said, IANAL. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can comment on this subject. I hope I'm wrong.
I'm filing for a patent on the air we breath. I have enhanced the air good enough to call it my own. No one can breath it unless they sign an agreement and I have to approve it. Depending on your income will depend on the types of air. If you are an employee of Micro$oft, or you LIKE Micro$oft, the air that has been alloted to you is body gasses from after eating at Toco Bell. If at any time my patent is violated, you will sued and made to recite the following statement. My new saying: Microsoft OS's: A 32-bit graphical user interface to a 16-bit patch of an 8-bit operating system designed for a 4-bit microprocessor by a 2-bit company who can't stand 1-bit of competition.
As long as Microsoft has any patent even remotely related to any of the listed protocols, this is a valid legal agreement, because each side is giving something to the other. And while what you are getting is probably not useful to you, Microsoft is getting something very useful out of it: you have to display their licensing notices and you have to face restrictions in how you can sublicense your software (which probably also means that you can't work on many open source projects in the future).
Microsoft is afraid -- their revenues are flat or falling in certain markets, the trend toward free software is undermining the value of commercial software, and people are moving to more secure products in light of Microsoft's deficiencies.
Fear and greed are powerful motivating factors, especially when combined. Microsoft can not compete on reliability or uptime or prices, so it can only fight back in one way: by sharing it's fear.
All about me
How about we just turn everything running non-microsoft operating systems off for a day, and see how many e-mail still get delivered, and pages served?
I doubt any packet would travel more than a kilometer.
SSH is still OK to use. We can just tunnel every other protocol through SSH.
Seriously, I wish MS had support for SSH (the daemon). It is a good tool.
MS is trying to scare potential OSS users because they won't have a licence. At the least, you'd need a solicitor looking at teh code.
maybe the FSF or anyone else has to come up with the same approach, look's like MS tries to get some votes. Evereyone believes this is good idea should think again twice.
my 2 cent
Some of these protocols pre-date MicroSoft.
They're bluffing. Unlike SCO, they have plenty of legal money to bring any challengers (legit as they might be) to their knees.
I predict a great disturbance in The Force.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
...that Al Gore is now 0wned by Mircrosoft?
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in an election.
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.Another funny clause:
Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.
i see most of the commenters havent even rtfa!
... these are the people for whom the article was written in the first place ...
....
the original article and the original note on which the article is based is in no way saying that microsoft does even have any rights over any of these protocols/technologies anyway.
calm down and take beer, this is just a marketing trick, nothing else. there are just some companies that dont even hesitate and are willing to pay microsoft for anything
ps. can i patent sueing me ? that would be a nice one
I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
bjd
I'm willing to put my time and bandwidth to creating a petition against Microsoft's actions. If someone IS a lawyer around here, and is willing to help draft a petition, contact me.
This is of utmost importance. This is more important than the election. This is horrible, really. I'm livid.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /downloads/list/windevwin.asp No click-through license on this one. Tee Hee
I predict Chuck Hagel will run for President for the Republicans in 2008. And he will win.
The only way he won't is if he is defeated in primaries or the election by a 60% majority. Anything smaller can be usurped by sabotaged e-voting machines.
It sounds like a few peeps have been a bit confused by what this article says Microsoft are doing with this. I could be wrong, but here's my take on it:-
1) Microsoft either definitely *don't* have patents for the core protocols talked about here, or there is sufficient controversy that the IETF is likely to resist fairly strongly to the idea that they do.
2) Because of this, the goal of this licensing is *not* to try and make use of patents that Microsoft definitely has. What the goal is, is to cause people who are ignorant of the issue to *think* that Microsoft owns patents for these protocols. If people *think* Microsoft owns patents for these protocols, then they will be intimidated into using Microsoft's non-open implementations...even though Microsoft does not in fact own patents for them! So yes...it's fraud.
3) Considering that the US is likely to be the main battleground for this particular issue, it's worth noting that the Bush administration is extremely unlikely to come to the aid of the public interest here in any way, unlike the attempt of the Clinton DOJ to charge Microsoft under the Sherman Act. Bush has, as one of his central principles, the idea of giving moral and legal impunity to his friends...completely irrespective of how illegal/immoral the activities of said friends might otherwise be. If Microsoft contributes financially to keeping Bush in power, (which they have) they can openly violate the Sherman Act or whatever other laws they like...Bush and his cronies in the judiciary will quite happily look the other way. This is a very significant point when considering TCP/IP in particular, unfortunately...as those protocols were developed by Americans. Doing things like preventing software patents from becoming law in Europe might be a positive goal, but because so much of the early work on the net was done by Cerf and the others (who are American) the legal wellbeing of the Internet's base protocols arguably rests with the American government...or at least, it would govern any legal issues concerning them...which, given the hands said government is in right now, is an extremely frightening prospect for those of us who value Internet use.
This must be a farce article. If Microsoft really owns a patent for these protocols, including TCP/IP it just really highlights how useless the patent system has become.
Microsoft had nothing at all to do with TCP/IP development, in fact they tried to push Netbios/Netbui which of course like IBMs proprietary protocol SNA is a wounded horse waiting for the final bullet.
Microsoft is tring to unfairly position themselves as holding patents on things they didn't develop for monopolistic reasons. The truth is more like they "borrowed" SNMP sources for Exchange, refit windows by open source WINSOCK, borrowed "rpc", stole kerberos and LDAP -- and don't even credit the original developers.
The reasons they have so many bugs in their implimentations has more to do with limitations of the Windows kernel. Having to adapt code where POSIX functionality does not exist. It is a message passing model out of the 60's and relies on poor memory protection for it to operate at all. Whole sections of code are blocking and none pre-emptive.
They know what is coming, a PC from China that comes with an OS that costs less than Windows XP Pro. There is no billions for Bill here. The job of marketing types is to keep the bull and hype a flowing.
When Microsoft looses it's first place, it will go like Digital. Or perhaps if they deliver a better product instead of threats, legal extortion and fraudulant claims they might become a bit player like Novell.
Novel should offer a 100% complete install of Suse for $29 that includes Suse, Open Office, Ximan and all the bits and pieces. Minus source so Microsoft can't copy it easily.
Microsoft is about marketing and not technology development. Far too many out there believe Microsoft invented the Internet.
The real question here is, does the USPTO have a critical mass? If so, up the voltage! Quicker we need more patents to destroy this deathstar!
I just RTFA and the first protocol listed was AppleTalk http://www.apple.com/developer/. I have a feeling that even Microsoft wouldn't be so stupid as to try to claim IP on somthing that is a competitors name in the
We still have IP over avian carriers, CPIP (carrier pigeon internet protocol) aka rfc 1149 (go read it up). It was successfully tested and works well enough to keep reading slashdot... http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/
See pictures of tits
Look. The term "TCP/IP" is used to signify the TCP/IP suite as someone has already pointed out. This makes 95% of your post meaningless.
You're trying to say that all software, from the dawn of TCP/IP, is incorrect and they don't know what they're talking about even though they wrote the stuff?
I think *most* people that are using the term TCP/IP know what it means. I really don't see any value in the arguement against using it.
Then you say we shouldn't even us IP because there's other things in the world that use the same abbreviation. Give me a break! Just like anything else in ANY language, it's all about context. When you say "Are the computers communicating over IP?" I think it's pretty damned obvious you don't mean "Are the computers communicating over Intellectual Property?"
Some folks really like to harp on little insignificant things, especially language nuances. It's usually some geek trying to push their ideals about something - like telling everyone they are stupid if they don't say IPv4.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Forgive me if I'm being stupid but didn't UC Berkley develop the TCP/IP Protocol?
What's next Bill....a patent on breathing?
In fact this article says more about how we live in a climate where journalists and slashdot readers do not display any intellectual rigor but instead enjoy jumping on the bandwagon.
Once,a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away Slashdot was a place where geeks went to discuss issues of the day. Much of the comment was intelligent, and if you were lucky it was a place to learn.
Now it is a place for hate, where the Linux mobs bay for blood, and the zealots of OSS call for fatwa and jihad against the infidels. Stories are accepted as long as they bash the 'evil' Microsoft and support the rebel forces.
No wonder the US just elected a president on a platform of hatred - a strong consituency of mob fueled fury seems to hang out here, so why shouldn't the US be the same.
"Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
Does this mean that MS might charge more for a piece of software because it includes a license to *their* TCPIP?
You could use it to justify a price hike.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Microsoft knows they don't own most of these rights. But what they are trying to trick you (e.g. lots of businesses and their managers and lawyers) into, is effectively agreeing to license everything through them. Once they have a grasp on you with this, they can later force you to sign additional licenses to be able to use upgrades to these protocols, even though you would not need to if you didn't sign this one to begin with. It's a form of entrapment, and the terms are non-negotiable once entrapped. These future licenses can then do evil things varying from costing you more money, to prohibiting you from using software they did not license you to use to make use of the protocols you are licensing from them (e.g. you can't use Linux to talk TCP/IP now because you have agreed to do all your TCP/IP through our licensing).
It's not evil to those who understand what is going on. The vast majority of business people actually have no idea. They will be the gullible ones thinking they are covering their own ass now, when in fact they are handing it over to Microsoft to chew on any time they want to.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The msdn.microsoft.com server does not even work unless you are using IE, apparently. I get the following message in Firefox:
I then dropped back to Netscape and tried that and got:
I'm sure this is intentional at Microsoft. And yes, the message came out doubled on each hit, and yes, there was no space between "administrator." and "An error" between them.
Oh wait ... Microsoft has been Slashdotted!
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This seems like nothing more than a license, from microsoft, regarding microsoft software, saying:
"This is a list of protocols you can use with our operating system/software. We didn't write most of these protocol, we don't own most of these protocols, and we don't really give a shit if you sign this or not, because the DOJ is making us write this.
Further, we aren't responsible if these protocols break your machine or insult your mother, and any protections regarding the use of these protocols that we might have, we extend to you, because we don't want some SCO wannabe suing our customers, this way they have to sue us. And we're unsueable.
Please from this day forth associate all these protocols with this license that does nothing that the DOJ made us write and you read. They didn't say it had to be clear or concise, and we took advantage of that. Basically, we hate slashdot, and this should stir things up a bit. Neener Neener."
And basically, I think that's all this is. Nothing to see here.
Trouble is, way too many business, large and small, are run by people who are effectively just such dummies when it comes to technical things like internet protocols and who developed them.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
megalomania
It's pretty obvious. The license doesn't do much, but it DOES say:
"Microsoft, at its option, may list You as a licensee on a website or in other public communications."
So in other words, they will put out a newsletter at some point that looks a something like this:
"Microsoft customers see value in Intellectual Property rights, unlike those Communist Linux Bastards. The Microsoft Protocol Bullshit License has been signed by JoeBobCompany because they know that being protected is important in these times of questionable patent and license issues that our legal department is causing."
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Yet again, geeks don't understand the business world: it doesnt need to be true, logical or ethical it just needs to make money.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Don't the rights to this go to Berkeley and Vint Cerf, if anywhere? How 'bout BBN? This confuses me, as I don't know how MS will be able to show prior art here.
No offense but I haven't use any of their products in so long I guess I don't really care anymore. Cross-platform RAD GUI builder? Qt Designer, multiple choices of Java.
MS EULA?
MS LICENSE?
Affects me in the most abstract sense, but I'm guessing IBM and several other major corporations are going to give them a real fisting if there's anything truly devious in the license.
IANAL, thank goodness.
IANAL, but I think this would apply here. This doctrine should be applied more often to sink submarine patent claims.
p pe l.htm/ /www.converium.com/2103.asp
http://www.legal-definitions.com/equitable-esto
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm
http:
My rights don't need management.
WHAT...they're high if they think they can claim rights over http...who do they think they are, we'll show them...no matter how big you are, you can't just go around claiming
signal lost
Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details.
I think the thing that we have to remember here is that; first, Microsoft continually does things to shoot themselves in the foot. From what the license agreement says, this license is only to cover people who use or communicate with Microsoft products... Secondly, my opinion of this whole situation is that the UNIX community should respond with, "Fine, you don't want to play with us, we don't want to play with you." This could really hurt M$'s position...
Galen
In your face, and always right!
Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe?
The ordinary Joe? Squat. A programmer? A level playing field. It guarantees that you have the same rights to those protocols/technology that Microsoft does.
If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what?
Then you are in the same boat you were before.
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols?
WTF are you trying to say here?
And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
It says no enhancements are licensed by Microsoft, not that you can't do them. In other words, if you modify the protocol to a specification someone else owns rights to, Microsoft is not providing you a license to those rights.
Stupid slashdot ate part of my post.
Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere?
Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license?
A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.
So they must have posted this really early. How long until April 1st?
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
"This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real."
Any time a corporation claims it has the right to license a technology the implication is that they own part or all of that technology.
Microsoft has been at the receiving end of bashing. That doesn't mean that they haven't deserved it. All too often they have shown themselves to be underhanded, self serving corporate slime-balls. It's just a fact.
IANAL but I don't think I could get away with implement a twenty year old protocol in one of my applications and then offer licenses to that protocol as if I actually had rights to the protocol itself.
A license is an agreement between parties. One party giving the other certain rights that almost always come with restrictions. But without the agreement the second party has no use rights at all.
Clearly Microsoft has some reason for doing this. We can only guess what that reason is but if we factor in Microsoft's past behavior we can make an educated guess that its about self promotion. Perhaps easing into a new strategy to stop Open Source software. A new future FUD campaign? Future litigation against financially defenseless Open Source projects?
Who knows? But of one thing I am fairly sure; whatever their reasons, ultimately it will be bad for Linux and other Open Source projects.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The article sounded fine until this ridiculous statement:
"...To me, this looks a lot like Tom Sawyer's unpainted fence. Thought to be a grand opportunity at first, Huck Finn soon realized that he was just painting someone else's fence for free," Peterson said..."
Come ON! Huck Finn was nowhere to be seen in that incident! It was Ben Rogers, Billy Fisher, and Johnny Miller.
Plus, those boys never felt hoodwinked!
Sheesh. And to think we rely on these shoddy publications for our technical news.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
What claim can microsoft lay to TCP/IP?? I don't understand where they are going with this..
I think we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq and drop the 101st on Redmond to take out this nest of terrorists.
When will the madness ever end?????!!!!
...this license is referenced in the EULA for the next version of Windows, whether XP2 or Longhorn (or sooner in the next versions of various network enabled products, like MSN messenger). End user and PHB ignorance is they only way this scheme can work, and MS knows it.
Microsoft is essentially trying to do to the internet what SCO is trying to do to linux.
This license basically amounts to intent to defraud.
My feeling is that this is a carpet bombing approach to cover any aspects of any protocols their customers might want to use. Aka, "Use TCP/IP and we promise we won't sue you if any of our patents turn up".
The Samba comments elsewhere in here are inetersting. More likely, such a licence could be used not to claim ownership, but to screw around anyone trying to do open source after signing up to this licence. Aka, what are the risks of being sued over breaking the licence by contributing to incompatible licences, or OSS developers taking similar precautions to the Samba developrs?
Perhaps they are trying to (eventually) build the perception that anyone entering into protocol development without a swag of corporate licences is some kind of pirate...
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Can you tell me why M$ published this list then? Why would anyone essentially copy their /etc/services file and publish it as a "randz" list?
The proposed reason is to intimidate developers and create licensing friction for free software developers. The way copyright and patent infringement enforcement works a clear cut ownership is less important than a fat bank account and lawyers.
This list is indeed designed to give businesses pause. Ignorant big dog types will look at the list and shy away from developing software to meet their own needs in order to avoid SCO style messes.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You have weird ideas about control and reading material.
The articles I read mentioned 30 day termination, vague "marketing" requirements and unilateral change of contract clauses. Why would I dig through M$'s "randz" idea of Reasonable and Non Discriminatory when someone else has picked out all the unreasonable bits that make it something no sane developer would sign?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
1. methinks: ok, if you're a brit, then you probably don't know any better, but if you are a native-born american, and you have ever said 'methinks' in your life, then someone should come into your cubicle, push aside your yoda and garfield plushies, pick up one of your light sabers, and beat you to death with it.
2. automagically: if you've ever written any code (i suppose you'd call it a *proggy*), and you have at least the electronics understanding that is taught in the "EE for dummies" classes that CS students are forced to take, and you use the term 'automagically', then i suggest you push aside your pile of plushie yodas and garfield dolls, pick up one of your light sabers, and beat yourself to death with it.
3. beowulf cluster: read this now, and believe it later: it is not impressive to say 'just imagine a beowulf cluster of those'
4. goatse: no comment.
5. the slashdot effect: here's the scenario: this is slashdot, one of the most popular sites on the internet. someone posts a link to a *small* website. you notice that the server for that *small* web site has slowed down, and you post something along the lines of "just three posts and the server's toast already". of course, you would have left the apostrophe out of *server's*, but you get the idea. my response: "mr potato head. MR POTATO HEAD. REMEMBER WHEN I SAID I WOULD TELL YOU WHEN YOU ARE ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT?"
6. it's: it's ONLY MEANS ONE FUCKING THING: IT IS. IT DOES NOT MEAN ANY OTHER THING.
7. jerks who promise a list of 10 items and only have 6. or 7. whatever.
--
"moe, larry, cheese" - joseph goebbels, responding to adolph hitler's question as to what was the best line ever spoken in a motion picture.
The tactic that Microsoft is employing is
more basic than merely FUD. (Yes, I RTFA.)
If their claim of IP over 130 different
internet standards goes unchallenged, their
subsequent steps will be:
(1) personal "free-to-use" license, and then
(2) license with royalty payment.
Accepting their claim to the core IP is both
shortsighted and dangerous.
It also points out some serious problems with
the BSD license strategy, which Microsoft has
milked for all it is worth. Apparently, the
USPTO has not seen any software patent submission
that it doesn't like -- keep those fees rolling
in. WTF ever happened to "prior art"?
One thing this move does clarify however --
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, Microsoft
did! (Too bad that I am old enough to remember
that SUN and SGI adopted WWW technologies long
before Microsoft ever had a fscking clue.)
I didn't see this coming. No way. Not me. It's a complete surprise. I'm shocked. *Shocked* I tell you!
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
You haven't lived until you've read RFC 864 in the original Microsoft.
2) make a whole new spate of protocols and don't let microsoft participate (i.e., SCTP)
I don't see how that would help. Much of what MS claims happened before there WAS an MS, and certainly before Bill stopped claiming that the Internat is just a passing fad.
You see, MS believes that THEIR "IP rights" should be respected. They don't mind stealing other's rights.
All the RTFA and "this is just MS bashing" posts are missing the point. This license is not intended to control the protocols, its intended to control the developers. If you sign this license, you have a legally binding agreement with MS that you can't use protocol XYZ in a GPL product. It doesn't matter if MS owns or controls protocol XYZ, if you sign this contract, they don't need to. If enough developers sign this, or things like it, MS can squeeze open source development without owning anything. The idea isn't to do a knock-out blow against Linux, just a lot of little things to put a chill in the air.
They're saying "We own some of the patents/copyrights etc in these protocols. You may licence what we own of these protocols for free." Then comes the king-hit: you read the terms of this free-as-in-beer licence and dicover that you can no longer use your knowledge of these protocols to write GPLed software.
And of course the shallow thinkers in the audience will think "so what?" Here's what: the law says innocent until proven guilty, but Real Life says that if you get sued, you're going down whether innocent or not because you simply don't have the money to adequately defend yourself in court.
Think about that for a while. You contribute a GUI frontend to nmap and also sign their protocols licence. They sue you for using your knowledge of their parts of the protocols to contribute to a GPLed project. Sure, the code you wrote knows diddly squat about the protocols - only nmap needs to do that - but proving it in court before a judge who barely knows a PCMCIA card from a memory stick ain't gunna be so easy.
While you're busy doing that, they're also suing forty other GPL developers and another 40,000 have become too terrified by all of this to continue with their projects.
Then someone signs up for the licence who once contributed to SaMBa, KDE, GNOME, KOffice, OpenOffice, Mozilla, name it and suddenly Microsoft have a much bigger, meatier target in their corporate crosshairs than a lone developer.
Remember, they don't really care whether they win or lose the court battle, the end goal is to do as much damage to their competitors as possible, and everyone is Microsoft's competitor, even their own customers.
If they lose a court battle but shut down the OpenOffice project and permanently taint the codebase doing that, it's a big win from their corporate competitive perspective. The price of MS-Office would double within the year in most places, and they'd be constantly going over the code for KOffice, AbiWord and even Pathetic Writer after that, in the hope of finding a tainted author that they can bludgeon each project with.
Are we clear on this point now?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You should see their swimsuit issue!!!
At least they're not including RFC 1149! *phew*
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
Everyone knows that you can't get a separate licence for sneezing!
Sneezing is bundled as part of the Microsoft Orifice TM Suite, that runs exclusively on Microsoft Me TM Bodily System, which is their latest and greatest BS offering. Upgrade today!
Unfortunately, the Borg Collective (aka M$) seems to think that if they hold the license for stuff they can control how you use it. Up to now, they've been right. Given their track record, I'd be very wary of this move and I'm surprised that the IETF and/or IEEE hasn't made some moves to block their liceseing based on the grounds that several of the protocols predate the existence of The Collective.
I find that the fact that they are trying to license things to which they are not entitled to be highly suspcicious. Any time they start down a path like this, they are up to something. Most of us have refused to be assimilated so we should be working to break their licenses now. Don't wait for the DOJ to do it and don't ignore them. They've made a serious move and it's time for open source to make a serious counter move.
Instead of "Remember the Alamo", it's "Remember Netscape!".
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Do the wonderful folks at groklaw have something to say about this?
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
...Microsoft trying to make money from licenses than it has to do with trying to make it harder for the average person to be a content producer and distributor vs. just being a consumer. It's still a bad thing, but do not let them convince you that licensing profits are at stake. Something bigger is at stake: your role as a consumer of services.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
if you are familiar with the OSI model, it can pretty easily explain any network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
Anyway, the microsoft "network model" appears to be the same for every protocol, and more or less has an easy swap Network/Transport area (or, the protocol used).
7 Application - Windows Application
6 Presentation - Kernel mode Executive Services
5 Session - SMB | WIN sockets
4 Transport - *see below
3 Network - *see below
2 Data Link - NDIS interface (driver)
1 Physical - Hardware
*these are filled in with anything MS offers as a drop in, wether it be IPX/SPX, APPLETALK, NETBEUI, or, in the case of my example, TCP/IP.
Now, to get all these to work "seamlessly" (yeah, right), microsoft made tie-ins so that they can all still use "NetBEUI" style names (the NetBios over TCP/IP for example).
Starting with Windows NT, microsoft began altering the normal steps for NetBIOS (you know, that \\computername thing?)resolution to "enhance" it the standard (most likely set by IBM when they came up with it), doing things they thought were more efficient.
Most likely they did this with everything else too (which explains "rights" to most of the protocols that would fill in layers 5 and up, including FTP, HTTP, SMPT, etc.), and in doing so, did something that required them to change the level 4 and 5 protocols, which alone would be enough to claim "rights" to their changes.
****I stopped reading other comments about 1 page into the 6 that are here now. Why? I'm impulsive... I did however search for the word "NetBIOS" to see if the exapmle was there, and it wasn't, so if someone already actually argued the changes they had to make in order to use NetBIOS for everything when nobody else ever does, then I'm sorry. Also, I'm lazy and didn't actually read that link, and instead relied on things I had to learn 3 years ago for the Network+. Yes, I know the OSI layer is an abstract thought more than anything technical, but it still shows the connection, and as such, maybe, in some way is slightly... on topic...even if completely unneeded in my point. I am not responsible for any injuries you may inflict upon yourself as a result of reading this. Ducks are kinda neat. They echo, though.****
And FTP, and HTTP, and TCP/IP, and DNS and TraceRoute, and everything else, apparently.
I'll bet that Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee don't believe this any more than I do.
Notice that if you don't now have a business relationship wiht SCO you arn't subject to suts from SCO.
The Microsoft license in question brings you into the domain of a legal relationship wiht Microsoft for the listed protocols. Microsoft also reserves the right to ammend the license.
You may now, or in the future, agree to use the protocols "or whatever part of the protocols Microsoft may own" in ways aproved by Microsoft.
So, by signing the license agreement you agree to legal exposure to Microsoft's will. They, if they own the *slightest* part of a protocol they have reason to beleive you are using, can come into your place of business and harass you out of that business.
That includes palces where your business has business if they "beleive" you have violated the license by sharing their beef with a third party.
They have the money, and they have the lawyers, they just don't have cause (yet) to muck around in your life.
You don't have to be "right" to sue someone. You only have to be able to prove to the court that you *thought* you were right afterwards to avoid a penalty. The total size of the penalty Microsoft could "soak up" for driving SAMBA or Linux contributors out of business could be rather extreme compared to the bankrolls of thost contributors.
The license doesn't taint the *protocols* it taints the *programmers* who can then taint the *projects*.
It is completely legal for you to sign away your rights to nearly anything (in business anyway) look at the latest EULA rulings, which support that clicking a button marked "I agree" and which to you means "install what I bought you stupid program" is binding even though it doesn't grant you anything and grants them everything. It's a "valid contract of adhesion" according to the court.
How much more adhesive is your signature on papers that tacitly admits that you recognize and ceed interest to *your* *use* of TCP/IP to microsoft because you beleive they *may* have interest in it.
A lot really.
And it only has to be enough intrest to bankrupt you or drag you into court for months on end, if all they really want is to keep you out of the GPL pool.
If the license is harmless, then it is unnecessary, pretty much by definition.
In short, this thing they want you to sign isn't a "pure license" like the GPL, it's a "contractual license" and so its a "contract." One of who's terms is that the other party can change the terms at will.
How about this. I've got this license here. I *may* have IP interests in the fifth-wheel (that thing on between the tractor and trailer in an 18-wheeler rig) and several other important automotive innovations and fundimental functions. This list of 140 devices and conceptual elements of shiping and receivng and transportation may use some of my interests. You could be exposed to liability if you don't license these things from me (and possibly the unnamed other people who may also onwn some of this stuff). Just to be safe, sign this free agreement at no cost, where you agree to keep whatever I may own under terms favorable to me. I promise that I will never sue, this is just for your protection. I can change the terms once you have signed, but only if I find it necessary.
Sign here. I promise you it can only help you be safe. [and then I can stop terrorists and child pornogrophers from driving drunk someday, or something, yea...]
Smart? Hmmm, very smart. (If you are Me/Microsoft... the rest of you/us... not so much.)
Ask yourself. If this is not intended to make money, because it is free. And with it you are protecting yourself from being sued by Mcirosoft, who could just decide not to sue you for what they don't own anyway, why is Microsoft spending good money on lawyers and publicity to get you to sign the thing. If it were toothless, why not just print a public pledge in the New York Times?
Answer: they want YOUR NAME !EXPLICITLY! on a piece of THEIR PAPER that says you will do
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Just before the protocol list, I read this:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties."
Although M$ is the devil, it's hard to say they claim IP rights on such a list.
Why are proprietary protocols included in this list? Should Ericsson, Apple and al. start to feel unconfortable and protect their IP while it lasts?