Skype Protocol Has Been Reverse Engineered

An anonymous reader writes "One researcher has decided he wants to make Skype open source by reverse engineering the protocol the service uses. In fact, he claims to have already achieved that feat on a new skype-open-source blog. The source code has been posted for versions 1.x/3.x/4.x of Skype as well as details of the rc4 layer arithmetic encoding the service uses. While his intention may be to recreate Skype as an open source platform, it is doubtful he will get very far without facing an army of Microsoft lawyers. Skype is not an open platform, and Microsoft will want to keep it that way."

Comments

Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[commodore6502]

And yet we have several programs that can read/write to Office files. It seems the same could be done with MS Skype - call it OpenSkype or LibreSkype.

The only problem is the potential to be sued for theft-of-service (making calls w/o paying).

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless there is a substantial amount of client-trusting going on(which would be incredibly stupid; but not entirely out of the question given that Skype makes heavy use of random machines running Skype to save the operator bandwidth and machine time), I suspect that having the protocol won't be of too much use for theft of service. Even using a 3rd party client, you'd still need credentials tied to an account with money in it, and Skype can always bounce you at the points where their network meets the POTS/Cell system.

Again, unless analysis of the protocol reveals deep, exploitable, flaws I'm guessing that MS won't care too much. The world already has at least one born-open VOIP protocol(SIP), quite possibly several, and those haven't been a deep threat to Skype because they are comparatively hard for neophytes to set up, have firewall issues, etc. Heck, Microsoft bought Skype despite having a voice chat system in MSN. Voice chat over the internet, while not trivial, just isn't some super trade secret, nor is it what makes Skype a contender.

Now, given the reports of how slimy and secretive the Skype binary can be, I'd be happy to see an open implementation; but I suspect that the possibility won't rock the boat from MS' perspective...

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Ash Vince]

Now, given the reports of how slimy and secretive the Skype binary can be, I'd be happy to see an open implementation; but I suspect that the possibility won't rock the boat from MS' perspective...

The strength of Skype is it's user base, that is why it was so expensive to MS. A messaging client is only as good as its user base. They bought skype for its users and market penetration and that it why it leaves everything else in it dust. If I could use a rival client to communicate with people on the skype network I would drop skype in a heartbeat, especially when I am using Linux as their Linux client it dire. Likewise the androids client. I will be very glad if this results in a rival client, ideally an open source one.

I do think however that Microsoft will already be screaming at an army of lawyers to shut this guy up quickly. You are entirely wrong when you say this will not rock the boat from their perspective, and you will see this in hours or days rather than weeks.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

Both old binary (doc, xls, ppt) and new XML formats were opened quite same time ago. Only MS Office source code remains closed.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc313105.aspx

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[exomondo]

call it ... LibreSkype.

please don't.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[TheInternetGuy]

We wont.
Skype is Trade-marked so we could not use that. We have decided to name it Pesky-Libre instead.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

You hit the reason right on the head, Microsoft wanted the network of users. They don't need the client or the technology at all. They already have that, several times over, both proprietary and standard implementations. This now provides a service through which any Windows, Windows Phone and XBox user can make video calls to not only every other Windows, Windows Phone and XBox user but also with any Skype user.

Given that, unless there are some serious problems with the underlying protocol that could compromise the security or reliability of the network, there really is no reason for Microsoft to want to block third-party implementations. If you could use a rival client with people on the Skype network, you'd still represent a user on that network. Of course I wouldn't expect them, or anyone else, to actively support alternative clients.

The big question becomes how willing you are to use an inferior client just to snub the new owners of that network.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[pintpusher]

Epyks-libre. It's Epyk!

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

The strength is in the user base of the NETWORK, not the client. You'd drop the skype client but you'd still be connecting your new client to their network and buying time from them to terminate to POTS and cellular.

Having diverse clients all connecting to the same network will increase the user base, not shrink it.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the trick would be figuring enough of the protocol out in order to make video workable and also provide people with the means to host their own servers. That could avoid the theft-of-service problem.

There already is VOIP (voice over IP) solutions that are open and work in this way. (From what I understand, they didn't reverse-engineer Skype and are catering to a different audience. A gaming chat like Mumble/Murmur is a good example. Considering what it is, it works surprisingly well.) So the only spot not quite covered yet is the other VIOP (video over IP) which lets people do the webcam thing. I'm sure many computers and their broadband is now up to spec, so now it's just a matter of making it happen.

I'd suggest taking what he knows already, firing some emails to already existing open source chat developers (avoid re-inventing some stuff, etc.), figuring out the best of what's available, and then making it possible and very easy to do all of it without need of any middleman in the process.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[TheInternetGuy]

Reverse engineered Skype -> Epycs , I see what you did there... Nice

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[formfeed]

And yet we have several programs that can read/write to Office files. It seems the same could be done with MS Skype - call it OpenSkype or LibreSkype.

You can't call it anything-Skype.
Replace Skype with something similar. Heavenpi, Skipole, Ski-pie, Kyte, Skate, Scalp?
Great! OpenScalp!!

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[davester666]

Exactly.

Call it by it's proper, full name:

GNU-LibreSkype

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[exomondo]

it's GNU/LibreSkype you insensitive clod ;)

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[GauteL]

"Call it OpenSkype or LibreSkype."

An open Skype-compatible alternative would be brilliant. But if you want to avoid getting sued, I suggest calling it something entirely different.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure it is in the open and stays that way therefore limiting the money M$ Corp can screw out of people

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[RockDoctor]

If I could use a rival client to communicate with people on the skype network I would drop skype in a heartbeat, especially when I am using Linux as their Linux client it dire.

Thanks for reminding me to re-start my client.

No, I don't trust it to restart when I log on.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[RockDoctor]

Very trepunning.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why Skype didn't open up. They don't make money from calls made from their crapware. Or they didn't until they recently started charging for video conference mode and distributing spyware.
Leaving the porting job to Google, open source developers, Apple, etc. is a lot cheaper than doing it yourself. There have been rumors of badly broken security, and last week we learnt about side channel attacks. However, once you have the userbase, the protocol can be changed in two consecutive updates without any Windows user ever noticing.
I can understand Microsoft killing the competition off - I'd do the same if I was the CEO of an evil company - but the original Skype company was very short-sighted in my opinion.

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[SEE]

Epyks!

Re:Microsoft Office is not an open platform either

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

How about a real open protocol?

[mailman-zero]

Just because the protocol is reverse engineered doesn't make it open. I would rather see an open standard become supported or used by Skype/Microsoft.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

No kidding! It's not like we don't have an open protocol that does the same thing. XMPP Jingle exists; reverse engineering Skype is just a pointless, useless, timewaste.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

SIP.

Oh, wait, you needed to talk to somebody who is using Skype. Shit.

Network effects are a nuisance; but you just can't dismiss them. It would, indeed, be rather perverse to use reverse-engineered secret protocols as the basis for new systems where open ones are available(SIP, XMPP, etc, etc.); but if you want to interact with the userbase of a proprietary protocol your options are either to reverse engineer it, or to accept whatever T and Cs the proprietary software decides to impose.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[doti]

the question here is not the protocol/technology, but the userbase.

you can't use jingle to talk to all your friends running skype.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[kpoole55]

Problem is that Microsoft might start with an open standard then they'll add proprietary extensions that will make the open standard less open. They tried it with Internet Explorer and fortunately didn't quite succeed although it took years for an alternative to really take a foothold.

No, I rather not see a truly open standard be created only to become corrupted by Microsoft. Better to have a truly open standard and client that also is compatible with the Skype protocol through reverse engineering so they cannot claim copyright infringement. They can argue trade secrets but that hasn't stopped the creation of other tools compatible with Microsoft data formats.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

So you say, "Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP." Set that date two or three months down the road so people have a transition window. By the way, this works for legacy IM systems like MSN, AIM, ICQ and Yahoo Messanger as well.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[PhilHibbs]

And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Jozza The Wick]

You think my sister or my not-very-computer-saavy parents are going to do that so I can continue to video chat with my niece in the UK? No. Understandably so (although of course I'd love them too), they have lots of other demands on their time. Plus, no motivation from their end. Why should they go through all that hassle (for them), just to maintain the status quo? No, what we really need is a open source client that can talk to native Skype clients. So this isn't a waste at all, for those using Skype with non-techy friends & family... It's the critical mass effect.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[houstonbofh]

Yep. I told that to the people at my company too... You hiring? (Note: That was a joke. But with some truth on the side.)

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MaskedSlacker]

Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP.

And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?

Yes. Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Archangel Michael]

Why not make a SIP / Skype Gateway and sell the service / product? Why not market it as "universal" VOIP client.

It might make transitioning away from Skype to SIP much easier.

Where people see a problem, I see opportunity.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[hellop2]

Yeah then I follow it up with. iPhone sux! Can't change the battery. What, are you an idiot?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MikeBabcock]

Entertainingly, Microsoft's Netmeeting worked quite well as a voice/video SIP client back in the day. Of course, nobody* used it. Skype on the other hand is completely useless for connecting to standards-based chat/voice/video clients, but it has a huge user base.

Welcome to marketing.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[poetmatt]

I believe the phrase is "not my mistake", not "not my problem", actually.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[lalleglad]

"I would rather see an open standard become supported or used by Skype/Microsoft."

Yes, I agree, and with the knowledge of the history of Microsoft I would have to add:

"I would like to see the extinction of World hunger, end of all wars and a beautiful woman to all men, and vice versa, but ..."

that is not going to happen until Hell freezes over!

Or Microsoft runs out of money.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[gknoy]

But ... you're their techie. You say, "Hey, we're going to use X now. Here is an installer for it, and I'll help you through setting it up." That's how you got them to set up to use Skype, right? If the purpose of the tool is videoconferencing over the internet (rather than low cost international calls), it seems like that should be sufficient.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[node 3]

So you say, "Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP." Set that date two or three months down the road so people have a transition window. By the way, this works for legacy IM systems like MSN, AIM, ICQ and Yahoo Messanger as well.

Forever Alone...

What, do you think your friends and family are just going to switch to something they don't even understand just to talk to someone who acts like he's the Queen of England? Of course not. They'll still use the phone, but if they are heavy Skype/MSN/AIM/etc. users, they simply won't do so as much. Maybe that's what you really want anyway?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[node 3]

And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?

He did mention "pick up the phone", although one could be forgiven for forgetting that the iPhone actually is a phone...

(not to mention there are plenty of XMPP apps on the App Store)

The biggest hurdle will be to convince people to use them simply to talk to one oddball.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a multi-protocol VOIP client can support Skype and something open, then Skype's network effects can be greatly weakened. That's pretty much why most of IM conversations are on XMPP now: everyone was using clients that let them sign onto AIM and XMPP until some of them stopped bothering with signing into AIM. Of course, XMPP has the advantage of being a strictly better protocol; it is not obvious what advantages Skype's open competitors offer over Skype. Maybe the option to securely encrypt calls? I doubt that is actually a killer app, but some people certainly want it.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Jozza The Wick]

Actually, no I didn't. My parents managed to do it by themselves. Because they wanted to skype with my sister and see my niece. Grandchildren are great motivators, I'm finding! I know they wouldn't have managed it just to see my ugly mug :) I still can't believe my dad managed to set it up since he regularly confuses Windows, the internet and Internet Explorer. But he did. And I live an ocean away from them. And I'd need to switch my sister, my parents, my brother-in-law's parents and anyone else my parents and sister talk to. For no real incremental benefit for them. So again, no real compelling reason for them to switch. Hence the need for an open source client so at least I communicate with them... perhaps set up for them next time I'm back there, if it works well enough for me...

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Ash Vince]

Why not make a SIP / Skype Gateway and sell the service / product? Why not market it as "universal" VOIP client.

It might make transitioning away from Skype to SIP much easier.

Where people see a problem, I see opportunity.

So did Fring, look what happened.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Goaway]

And when they decide maybe they don't really need to call you?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MaskedSlacker]

Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.

Jesting aside, if their response to not being able to VIDEO call me on their iPhone is to reject AUDIO calling me and decide to not speak to me altogether, I'm almost certainly better off.

Then again, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for high maintenance relationships and am prone to simply not answering my phone for days at a time anyway.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[__Paul__]

If they want to talk to you, they'll find a way.

I don't use Skype - not because I can't, just because I can't be bothered running yet another bloated application on my computer - and people never seem to have trouble getting in contact with me.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

No, not when there's XMPP clients for the iPhone out there that will do Jingle.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

Exactly. Skype has too many open and long entrenched alternatives that we simply don't need Skype.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

You think my sister or my not-very-computer-saavy parents are going to do that so I can continue to video chat with my niece in the UK? No.

Sounds like your sister and parents don't love you very much.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

The functionality available in XMPP is nearly identical to Skype, MSN, AIM, Yahoo, whatever that they're just not needed. And it's not like Google Talk doesn't package the whole shebang neatly in an idiotproof package.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[goose-incarnated]

I'm guessing parts of the protocol were leaked by a malcontent employee who was pissed at the sellout

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Aldenissin]

Nobodies mentioned the excellent echo cancellation. Trust me, that matters. Plus it was clearer than anything I had tried when I first tried it several years ago. And they had cheap rates, and and and, it all for the most part just worked with all of the features.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your hand.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Daniel Phillips]

It's not like we don't have an open protocol that does the same thing. XMPP Jingle exists; reverse engineering Skype is just a pointless, useless, timewaste.

Agree that Jingle exists, plus is blessed by Google. That is where the bulk of community effort should go with the goal of building a truly open P2P voice network. Do not agree that reverse engineering Skype is a waste of time. P2P is a technically hard problem in the face of NAT endpoint difficulties. I can hardly hurt to study the details of Skype's approach.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[exomondo]

I don't use Skype - not because I can't, just because I can't be bothered running yet another bloated application on my computer

How is it 'bloated'?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Dhalka226]

Have to love somebody who issues ultimatums to their friends and family to fit some sort of software ideology.

Personally I bend over backward to accomodate my friends who want to talk with me, including the ones on the other side of the world for whom I maintain a SkypeIn number and am quite happy to pay for them to talk to me.

But see, that's because I value them more than I value whether or not the source code or algorithm to a service is open or not.

I can respect wherever one falls in the free software debate; I am not a zealot in either direction. But the idea of putting that position ahead of people, ahead of so-called friends, is just disgusting. My friendship is not conditional upon what software a person chooses to use.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Baloo Uriza]

That's not an ultimatum. Seriously, it's not that hard to pick up the phone, and it's a hell of a lot easier to do that than to delve into reverse engineering a proprietary protocol that'll change in a few weeks to break compatibility with any clients based on this reverse engineered protocol anyway.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[GillyGuthrie]

Skype enjoys its large user base in part due to the way that it penetrates firewalls with port randomization... Also, Skype uses strong encryption for its transmissions. I'd argue that Skype deserves its reputation and user base.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[petermgreen]

Afaict skype got it's userbase because it "just worked", no worrying about firewalls or NAT types or port forwarding or other shit like that. IIRC they used some dirty tactics to acheive this like using people with fast open internet connections as router nodes (I think they later moved to routing the worst case traffic through their own servers)

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah and you know NetMeeting doesn't work for shit across networks without special configuration, like pretty much all SIP clients. Skype solves this problem in a practical way for most users.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[PhilHibbs]

I'll have another look, I couldn't see one, maybe the descriptions aren't too clear. I had never heard of "Jingle", so I wasn't looking for that.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[LordVader717]

Where you see opportunity I see clunky workarounds and waste of resources. The service you mention does exist. You can run a PBX with the necessary software for free, or you could use the POTS gateways that charge by the minute.
Problem is it totally defeats the point of P2P voice calling.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[dintech]

I would rather see an open standard become supported or used by Skype/Microsoft.

Would you like a unicorn with that, sir?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[tehcyder]

Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP.

And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?

Yes. Being able to say "not my problem" is a powerful tool.

It's a fucking powerful tool for losing friends, I'll give you that.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[tehcyder]

Have to love somebody who issues ultimatums to their friends and family to fit some sort of software ideology.

Personally I bend over backward to accomodate my friends who want to talk with me, including the ones on the other side of the world for whom I maintain a SkypeIn number and am quite happy to pay for them to talk to me.

But see, that's because I value them more than I value whether or not the source code or algorithm to a service is open or not.

I can respect wherever one falls in the free software debate; I am not a zealot in either direction. But the idea of putting that position ahead of people, ahead of so-called friends, is just disgusting. My friendship is not conditional upon what software a person chooses to use.

I think this is the point where I suggest you are a paid Microsoft shill with a laughably small penis and a love of fondling young goats.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[tehcyder]

Where people see a problem, I see opportunity.

The main problem in life is that we're all going to die at some point, and the only opportunity there is to discover the secret of immortality. Good luck with that.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[RockDoctor]

And when one of them says, "So what app can I use to video call you from my iPhone?", do you reply, "You shouldn't have got an iPhone!"?

Which part of

"Look, after this date, if you still want to call me, either pick up the phone or use XMPP."

did your iPhone-user misunderstand? Was it the prepositions, the XMPP bit, or the "pick up the phone" bit? Oh, I see - iPhone users expect to put DOWN their phone to fiddle with the icons to make a call? (Never picked one up, but it's a Mac-a-like, isn't it?) Oh, sorry, "video call". OK, fair point. I've made a whole 2 video calls in my life, both using Skype to a POTS on the Belarus-Russia border. It wasn't worth the effort.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Rhodri Mawr]

What are these mythical "friends" things you talk about? Sounds like some sort of real world thing.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[richlv]

mm... implement skype protocol in an open source client that also supports sip/xmpp, use sip/xmpp between those clients...
well, not likely, but i may hope for it, right ? :)

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MikeBabcock]

A better discussion on this issue was had here.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[BrokenHalo]

I'm not so sure this might be referred to as a dirty tactic. The TOS clearly state that some of your bandwidth will be used for the benefit of other callers, and Skype seems to be pretty good at taking into account the fact that many users do not have fat pipes. I've occasionally used Skype on a 56K dialup connection, and I routinely use it via my USB internet dongle or the data plan on my phone, where in both cases my bandwidth is quite limited.

Admittedly, I rarely bother with video calls, since nobody really needs to see my ugly mug at 2.00 in the morning...

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MaskedSlacker]

My friendships are stronger than not being able to video chat with me from their iphones. Maybe you just need better friends.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[PhilHibbs]

OK, I was thinking of video calls. My mistake.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[mwvdlee]

Starting next month, I will no longer be visiting Slashdot to reply to your comments.
Please subscribe to the new site and post your comments there so I can still reply to them.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[mwvdlee]

Then again, I have an exceedingly low tolerance for high maintenance relationships and am prone to simply not answering my phone for days at a time anyway.

So basically the whole problem of friends no longer calling you is moot?

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[MaskedSlacker]

Which is why I can say "not my problem" so easily.

Re:How about a real open protocol?

[Eponymous Hero]

both would fit just fine. thanks for nitpicking.

Why I hate patents

[JMJimmy]

This is a perfect example of how little effort it takes to develop something like this and how easily a community could maintain it for the world to use but companies have to protect their billions

Re:Why I hate patents

[smelch]

Oh yeah it was so freaking easy thats why there is a wildly popular service just like it for free and nobody is worried about MS taking Skype away from Linux and Apple.

Re:Why I hate patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Reverse engineering an existing system does not demonstrate how little effort it took to develop the existing system.

Re:Why I hate patents

[0123456]

This is a perfect example of a community that again proves itself incapable of actually inventing anything, and instead just copies what someone else has done.

Because there's never been an open source voice protocol.

The issue with open source VOIP is not technical, but financial. You can easily set up voice calls over the Internet, but once you want to hook that into the telephone system it becomes much more complex and expensive.

Re:Why I hate patents

[ClickOnThis]

This is a perfect example of a community that again proves itself incapable of actually inventing anything, and instead just copies what someone else has done.

Exactly which "community" do you mean?

Re:Why I hate patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there's never been an open source voice protocol.

Even if there was can you name a single one that has even 1/10th the userbase of skype?

Re:Why I hate patents

[GameboyRMH]

Haha you just showed your ignorance about VoIP protocols!

Re:Why I hate patents

[MaskedSlacker]

What? Whatever you're smoking, please share.

The ease of developing a tool has nothing to do with whether or not it is popular. They're completely unconnected. Ease of use might have something to do with it, but ease of development is entirely unrelated. VOIP apps ARE easy to develop. Encrypted voice apps ARE easy to develop (once you've converted the analog audio to digital audio you can apply any encryption algorithm you like with whatever key-exchange protocol you like). Getting a large userbase on a given standard is one part luck, two parts MBA-bullshit--as I said, entirely unrelated.

Re:Why I hate patents

[imric]

Google voice? libjingle? sip and pbxs.org with google voice?

So don't worry about Skype being taken away by MS - be annoyed at MS behavior, yes. Remember that they have NOT changed their ways, just their PR.

But don't be worried.

Re:Why I hate patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The protocol would be SIP, and the projects would be Asterisk and it's various forks and related projects.

Re:Why I hate patents

[node 3]

Ease of use might have something to do with it, but ease of development is entirely unrelated.

Thank you for so succinctly summing up the single greatest problem with Linux and most other open source software.

Ease of use *IS* part of development. It's just as much a requirement as any other technical aspect.

Also, like most nerds, you have vastly underestimated the difficulty in developing an application. It's easy to whiteboard a simple voice chat app, and *fairly* simple to create some sort of intercom-type chat program. But once you start adding things like central directories, low-latency variable bandwidth calling over the internet, and the like, you end up with difficulty even coming up with a reasonable whiteboard outline, and the actual implementation becomes quite difficult. By no means impossible, but it's not something you'll bang out over a weekend and be on par with something like Skype.

As awful as Skype may be, just because you understand the idea behind how it works doesn't mean it's easy to duplicate. This is a classic nerd mistake.

Re:Why I hate patents

[exomondo]

This is a perfect example of how little effort it takes to develop something like this and how easily a community could maintain it for the world to use but companies have to protect their billions

No it isn't, breaking the lock on an existing house is a hell of a lot easier than building a house.

Re:Why I hate patents

[JMJimmy]

Reverse engineering in itself is no easy task, and once you have the protocol reverse engineered you still need to build a program to use it. 1 guy did this where it takes a multibillion dollar company to screw up the technology (skype has been steadily getting worse in terms of quality, reliability, and usability).

An example of how it works well is mIRC - one guy built it, others expanded on it, there's various flavours from stand alone programs to browser plugins, to website integration and it's been free and is to this day one of the best chat room programs available.

None of that would have been possible had he patented/enforced copyright on it.

Re:Why I hate patents

[exomondo]

Reverse engineering in itself is no easy task

Im not saying it is, but it isn't an example of the ease of building a system in the first place.

and once you have the protocol reverse engineered you still need to build a program to use it. 1 guy did this

errr...I take it you haven't actually looked a this then.

An example of how it works well is mIRC - one guy built it, others expanded on it, there's various flavours from stand alone programs to browser plugins, to website integration and it's been free and is to this day one of the best chat room programs available.

Are you sure you know what mIRC is? Because mIRC is an IRC client application and I can't say i've seen the mIRC client integrated as a browser plugin or into a website.
Anyway the difference with Skype is that it is used by people from tech professionals to mom & pop end users, open source is traditionally not very good at the latter level of usability.

Re:Why I hate patents

[JMJimmy]

Sorry that was a very quickly and horribly written sentence. IRC, an open protocol, is an example of how it works well...

mIRC was an example of a solo developer implementing a highly popular client without the need of massive resources or the need to patent every little piece of code he wrote. It allowed others to write very similar IRC clients without fear of being sued and gave the consumer a lot of choices like web integration, Chatzilla (browser plugin), Trillian (IM client with IRC integration), etc.

As to programs that are used by professionals to mom & pop end users, there are quite a few that come to mind:

Wordpress
jQuery.js/prototype.js and the ilk
Firefox/Chrome
Thunderbird
LAMP stack

A lot of the mom & pops might not know they're using open source, like the LAMP stack, but there's a lot of it out there being used by a huge range of people.

Re:Why I hate patents

[exomondo]

mIRC was an example of a solo developer implementing a highly popular client without the need of massive resources or the need to patent every little piece of code he wrote.

There isn't exactly anything patentable in mIRC, and really it's just a basic chat program that used the IRC protocol from the BBS days.

As to programs that are used by professionals to mom & pop end users, there are quite a few that come to mind:

Sure wordpress, firefox and thunderbird are popular open source applications, im not saying it can't be done but over the life of the open source movement there are very few shining examples of usability done well enough for the general populace, so such a thing is *far* from easy. LAMP and jQuery aren't exactly used by mom & pop end users.

Re:Why I hate patents

[JMJimmy]

LAMP and jQuery aren't exactly used by mom & pop end users.

Just about everyone I know has a website of some sort either for personal use or for a business. A good chuck of those are using LAMP and some sort of open source CMS and a lot of those use jQuery/prototype.js and the like. As I say, they probably have no idea how to use it or that they even are - but they do use it.

Re:Why I hate patents

[exomondo]

LAMP and jQuery aren't exactly used by mom & pop end users.

Just about everyone I know has a website of some sort either for personal use or for a business. A good chuck of those are using LAMP and some sort of open source CMS and a lot of those use jQuery/prototype.js and the like. As I say, they probably have no idea how to use it or that they even are - but they do use it.

So of course the 'usability' aspect - which is my point - of those applications is completely irrelevant because that end user never has any interaction with the product directly anyway - like you said, they probably have no idea how to use it - as opposed to something like Skype which they do need to directly interact with and know how to use.

Do Facetime instead...

[AmazinglySmooth]

Facetime has much better video quality for low-bandwidth connections, and there is no Window's application for it. That would be a better target.

Re:Do Facetime instead...

[GameboyRMH]

Facetime also isn't encrypted, just slightly obfuscated. It's just a regular SIP connection with an Apple-hosted HTTP-based lookup service that ties SIP URIs to emails or phone numbers.

Re:Do Facetime instead...

[Anonymous Coward]

Facetime requires Traveltime though, and I'm not willing to dish out the service cost for Traveltime. :)

Re:Do Facetime instead...

[node 3]

There's no reason it can't be. In terms of consumer impact, FaceTime for Windows would be much more noticeable than an open Skype protocol.

It's really disappointing that Apple hasn't either ported FaceTime over to Windows, or done what they said last year and published the protocol so third parties could implement it. WWDC would be a good place to announce something like this, though. I guess we'll know in a few days.

Re:Do Facetime instead...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I am more interested in an open Facetime implementation than Skype. Just because it's Apple doesn't mean they don't do things right once in awhile.

Presumptious much??

[nicholas22]

Microsoft did not threaten any Kinect hackers when they reversed that protocol...

Re:Presumptious much??

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft doesn't make money off the Kinect as a service, they still sell the device itself to everyone who's using it. If anything, they're selling more because of it.

Re:Presumptious much??

[Missing.Matter]

I think at first they were against it, but after they saw how it was taking off they decided to ride the PR wave.

In the case of Skype, it benefits from network effects; as more people use it, more people want to use it. So if MS ultimately doesn't want to spend resources to support a small userbase like Linux, maybe it would be beneficial for them to let a minority of people access the service through an unauthorized third party.

Re:Presumptious much??

[MikeBabcock]

Try hacking the Live service protocol and tell me how Microsoft reacts.

PS I'm not actually recommending you break the law. Just trying to make people think.

Re:Presumptious much??

[goose-incarnated]

I think at first they were against it, but after they saw how it was taking off they decided to ride the PR wave.

In the case of Skype, it benefits from network effects; ...

It can also be destroyed by network effects - imagine if the second most popular skype client offered both skype and an open protocol - the world can slowly change over to the open protocol without any of the users even realising it. This is a bad thing for something that depends on lock-in, like skype

Re:Presumptious much??

[petermgreen]

OTOH people have been using third party clients on the msn messenger network for years reverse engineering each new version of the protocol as it came out and MS doesn't seem too bothered (then even published an early version of the protocol though according to wikipedia it was subtuly different from what MS were actually running)..

Re:Presumptious much??

[MikeBabcock]

Microsoft regularly locks out third party clients in one way or another. They have for a long time. At various points they've given up as well.

That said, the MSN chat protocol isn't even vaguely related to the security requirements of a console to make it sell-able to third parties as a platform.

Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[erroneus]

This could be the Skype killer we have been wishing for. It doesn't have to work with Skype, it just has to be as good as Skype and to be open. Imagine people being able to set up their own private Skype-like servers for personal and business use... even for home-monitoring uses and more. Skype will undoubtedly kill support for Linux and probably restrict access in a variety of ways. While being able to access Skype servers and services would be desirable, I wouldn't expect that to be allowed to work and would end up as the arms race we saw previously in instant messaging. (One that I think was ultimately lost or abandoned by those trying to fight 3rd party clients.) But if a truly free and open Skype-like set of clients and servers were made available, a lot of useful things can occur.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[blair1q]

Like...Vonage.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[hawguy]

It doesn't have to work with Skype, it just has to be as good as Skype and to be open.

I don't think that's true - there are a number of other video conferencing products out there, some are open, others are not, but as long as Skype continues to work on Windows/Mac and is free, there's not much reason for most people to switch.

Imagine people being able to set up their own private Skype-like servers for personal and business use

I'd be surprised if significant numbers of people set up their own servers - small businesses aren't likely to have the time (or desire) to set up their own servers, large businesses don't care if they have to pay (and many probably already use OCS/Lync)

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[rasmusbr]

A lot of work is being done on standardizing microphone, webcam and P2P support in browsers and it looks inevitable that there will eventually be lots of ways to speak to people directly on the web. Facebook, Twitter, Windows Live, Gmail and so on will have it built-in. Even Slashdot will probably have it eventually, although that is a vile and horrible idea...

Where was I?

Yes, right. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when we will have ubiquitous P2P voice and video on the web. Non-web solutions would probably be useful in some scenarios too, but the free software community is late to the table.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Greyfox]

It's a long way from "We have the protocol" to "It's as good as Skype." Most of what makes Skype "good" is infrastructure investments. Even if we can deliver a point-to-point application that's every bit as "good" as Skype, it's not any better than Linphone unless the rest of the infrastructure is in place to support all the features that Skype does.

There are numerous open programs that can provide point to point voice or video chat. Some of them are even pretty good. But without a lot of supporting servers and PSTN termination, they're pretty much useless to your average user who'd want to use Skype.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

GMail has it since a long long long time ago...

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Pentium100]

"As good as" won't do. It would have to be much better.

Here's why:
Normally, Skype works, also, a lot of my friends use it. So, I'm quite happy with it. To get me to switch to another system (and to somehow persuade my friends to do it too, since if I'm the only one using the new system it's not very useful) the new system has to be much better than skype. Being "open" is not a high priority - Skype is available for Windows and Linux, I do not need to pay for it (legally), so I will not try to write my own client.

So, there is no point for me to switch to another system (and convince all my friends to do the same) if all I'm going to end up with will be "as good as Skype". I can use Skype without all that additional effort of switching.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[brainzach]

It's the network stupid

If I have 20 friends on Skype and 1 friend on OpenSkype, I am going to get Skype. It doesn't matter if something else is more secure, open or faster if you have no one else to talk to.

The only way an open source version of Skype will be successful is if it is compatible with Skype's existing network of users.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[rasmusbr]

Yes, but if voice and video becomes standardized and easy to set up on the web every site with a community aspect, not just the big ones, will have a widget that you can use to talk to other members of the same community.

The need for standalone VoIP apps would shrink.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Missing.Matter]

Exactly. Slashdotters seem to have an irrational fear against anything touched by MS, and feel dirty having the client even on their machine. For the rest of us, we don't give a damn who owns the company as long as the service works.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[rasmusbr]

I would get both, assuming OpenSkype is lightweight and sits quietly in the background except when my one friend on OpenSkype calls me.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[gl4ss]

the real thing that makes skype special apart form running teamspeak or whatever chat solution from '90s.. is outside calls. that will always need a negotiating party with someone. of course now I think it's against skypes rules to sell outside calls? I'm not sure about that, but it would be pretty easy to sell outside calls from skype now too if you could beat the local rates(if you could do that to conflict hot spots you could get quite a bit of business though).

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[GameboyRMH]

Vonage? *facepalm*

Or like SIP...

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Pentium100]

Yea, if another service is much better than Skype, then people will gradually switch to it.

For example, people are ditching IE and using other browsers because they are better. Not a lot of people would use a browser that was "the same as IE, but open source".

With networks (like Skype) this is more difficult since you need to convince your friends to switch, but it can be done. There were other VoIP services before Skype, but they were worse than Skype. Also, some IM services, like ICQ are no longer used as much as they were.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Thelasko]

It doesn't have to work with Skype, it just has to be as good as Skype and to be open.

Yes, it has to work with Skype. What makes Skype good is its users. If you can't call any of the millions of people that have Skype, what good is it?

<sarcasm>I mean, look how fast Diaspora took off as an open source alternative to Facebook!</sarcasm>

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be the Skype killer we have been wishing for.

We? Not me.

It doesn't have to work with Skype, it just has to be as good as Skype and to be open. Imagine people being able to set up their own private Skype-like servers for personal and business use...

That sounds like a real pain in the ass, i.e. you need a lot of IT hours to get it to work and keep it working. No thanks.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Noughmad]

Exactly. Slashdotters seem to have an irrational fear against anything touched by MS

There's nothing irrational about it. MS, like most other big companies, have proved many times that they can be both evil and incompetent.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Archangel Michael]

Or like SIP...

like Vonage ?

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Slashdotters seem to have an irrational fear against anything touched by MS

There's nothing irrational about it. MS, like most other big companies, have proved many times that they can be both evil and incompetent.

Okay but how is Skype an example of this? It becomes irrational when you allow your fears to blind you.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[king neckbeard]

Skype is owned by MS now

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Jesus_666]

It's still good news. Microsoft might decide that Skype for $PLATFORM is not worth the money it takes them to support it. Skype might end up becoming incompatible with newer versions of the platform (for example because libraries change). Having a free alternative would at least change the consequence from "being cut off from the network" to "losing features but still being on the network".

I'm personally fine with Skype as it is. Well, as long as they don't drop support for version 2 of the Mac client, which I find to be the best implementation so far. But it's still nice to have an alternative just in case. Also, possible support for currently unsupported platforms.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Jesus_666]

For me, what makes Skype infinitely better than TeamSpeak et al. is the superior feedback avoidance. I find that TeamSpeak, for instance, has a hard time discerning important input (what I'm saying) from unimportant input (what's coming out of my speakers) so I have to operate in half-duplex push-to-talk mode or use a headset if I don't want to bury the channel in feedback. Skype's feedback avoidance is flawless.

Of course any third-party clients won't have that but they might still come in handy, for instance if there is no official client for the platform.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[westlake]

This could be the Skype killer we have been wishing for. It doesn't have to work with Skype, it just has to be as good as Skype and to be open. Imagine people being able to set up their own private Skype-like servers for personal and business use...

Nowhere are networking effects more important then in a telephone service.

Skype has 700 million users, demands nothing more of them the launch of the Skype client ---

and the Skype client is being built into everything:

The iOS mobile device. The PSP 2000. Soon to come Skype fpr MS Office and enterprise office systems. Microsoft SYNC for your Ford car or truck. Here today, Skype for your Samsung or Panasonic HDTV. Skype For HDTV

The FOSS server is the easy part.

Getting your FOSS client placed where it needs to be is hard.

There is no fundamental reason why the WiFi enabled home security system couldn't Skype in or out. The difference from the geek's DIY system is that the camera will be ready to run when you open the box from Home Depot.

You will give it a list of numbers that can dial in and a list of numbers it can dial out. There will be a few other user preference and set-up dialogs to complete. But that will be the end of it except for the occasional firmware upgrade.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[GameboyRMH]

You can try to hack into your Vonage SIP account but it's not the same as using a regular SIP service.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, people are ditching IE and using other browsers because they are better."

That only happens because the browsers are communicating with a common and open set of protocols (http/html) even with that Microsoft used proprietary implementations that slowed things down for years.

A competing system needs to be able to speak the same protocol as Skype so that users of either client can call each other. Then the clients compete on their merit rather than competing on entrenched user base which really has nothing to do with the client.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

Vonage costs money even when calling another Vonage user.
Want to play again ?

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, stupid.
If there was a good open-source alternative people wouldn't care leaving Skype !

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Malc]

If there's a choice of Skype's client or an alternative open source client, I'll probably be sticking with the Skype one, unless the open one has some other compelling reasons. Whilst Skype's UI is painful, it's generally better than the UI efforts of most open source software, and integrates better natively with whatever platform than most open source cross-platform apps. These are both areas where open source people seem to be clueless.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Malc]

Vonage... great idea; poor implementation (or maybe that's an inherent problem with the underlying protocols like SIP).

I was a Vonage customer when I lived in Canada. There was always terrible latency calling mobile phones, to the point where it would screw up conversations. And as somebody who travels a lot (like going to live elsewhere for four weeks or more at a time), I loved the idea of portability and location transparency offered by Vonage. Unfortunately it didn't work, which was a problem for those years I'd spend 15 weeks or more in the UK. Plugging the Vonage router in to a good internet connection in the UK still resulted in terrible audio sounding like a CD skipping.

Skype on the other hand has coped with just about everything I've thrown at it, including five months living in Shanghai with the terrible connectivity China has with the outside world. Conversations were acceptable to other Skype users and phones, with latency often in the 500-750ms.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Narcogen]

This may be harder than one might imagine.

The niche that Skype fills, for many users, is almost entirely defined at this point by what Skype does.

How would a new theoretical app/service be "better" than Skype, and how would this improvement be quantified? Let's leave out for a minute the exaggeration of any existing shortfalls that MS might cause. Yes, the new Mac interface is terrible, and MS might discontinue support for 2.8. Yes, Linux support is lacking, and MS might ignore that platform. Yes, MS might tie the service into Live, or absorb it into Lync and/or MSN, or put ads in it, or charge for PC to PC calls, but let's forget all of that.

What could one put in a theoretical Skype-killer?

Better audio or video quality? There are already choices that offer that; and like a Skype killer, they lack Skype's network effect. Quality is rarely a differentiator when there' a popular-enough, good enough choice available.

Some new feature? What people need a Skype-like program to do is almost entirely defined right now by what Skype does, so it's hard to imagine a hypothetical feature one might add that wouldn't be dismissed out of hand by lots of users who'd say "I don't need that" and stick with Skype. They might be fine with it if Skype added it-- some would use it, some would ignore it, but only a few people on any platform or service are going to abandon it for a new feature people have done without for years and didn't know they needed.

About the only thing I can think of is a race to the bottom-- offer what Skype charges for, for free-- PSTN connectivity or multi user video conferences. The latter is more possible than the former, but still very sensitive to network effects, and there have been no suggestions of how to overcome those; everything is predicated on waiting until MS screws things up for Skype somehow.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Narcogen]

I would get both, assuming OpenSkype is lightweight and sits quietly in the background except when my one friend on OpenSkype calls me.

Most people wouldn't bother. As for you... what about when OpenSkype forks and becomes LibreSkype and OpenSkype and SINS (which of course would stand for SINS Is Not Skype)? What if those drifted apart and lost interoperability?

For lots of people, myself included, Skype may already be one of two apps used for similar purposes; Skype and a softphone, Skype and an IM client, or perhaps all three. There's a point at which adding new elements to support new networks becomes insupportable; and the smallest networks will be the ones that are eliminated in the drive to consolidate clients. I've already made choices about what IM and softphone clients to use based on how many different networks they support, and if one client supports most networks, but not all, I don't keep another client around for those last couple, I just live without them.

The exception? Oh, yeah... Skype.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[Bert64]

Actually the idea is that you have the option to run your own server... Make it work like email, some people will spend the effort to have their own server while others will simply use the server provided by someone else.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[mridoni]

The people behind Diaspora decided to shoot themselves in the foot when they published a software implementation with no documentation of design, protocols, etc. I just checked and no technical documentation seems to be readily available (actually I had to resort to Wikipedia to find a link to their forum), something can be probably found in bits and pieces on the support forums, but obviously it is not enough for a project whose aims are so far-reaching. To add insulto to injury, the implementation they're running with is in Ruby: now, seriously, I don't have anything against Ruby and I think diversity in programming environments is a great thing because it's what ultimately innovation comes from. But if you want to get help, support and, ultimately, code from the community, you're supposed to use a language that is more widely used so that people can get up to speed more quickly with your codebase, especially when the documentation isn't there.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[rasmusbr]

I would get both, assuming OpenSkype is lightweight and sits quietly in the background except when my one friend on OpenSkype calls me.

Most people wouldn't bother. As for you... what about when OpenSkype forks and becomes LibreSkype and OpenSkype and SINS (which of course would stand for SINS Is Not Skype)? What if those drifted apart and lost interoperability?

For lots of people, myself included, Skype may already be one of two apps used for similar purposes; Skype and a softphone, Skype and an IM client, or perhaps all three. There's a point at which adding new elements to support new networks becomes insupportable; and the smallest networks will be the ones that are eliminated in the drive to consolidate clients. I've already made choices about what IM and softphone clients to use based on how many different networks they support, and if one client supports most networks, but not all, I don't keep another client around for those last couple, I just live without them.

The exception? Oh, yeah... Skype.

Sure, if we run our future prediction simulation this is likely to happen. After a while people would go back to using Skype, mobile, mail, Facebook and twitter, all of which does or (I'm sure) will do voice and video in the future. But even so I would use OpenSkype as long as it's useful to me. Installing and removing software is easy. No harm done if it fails. Not for me anyway. I don't know what the developers of OpenSkype and LibreSkype will think when their user numbers dwindle to less than before the fork...

As I wrote in another post: I think the free software community is very late to the table on voice and video (Asterisk is amazing, but that's like saying Linux is good for gaming because lots of gaming servers use Linux). I'm afraid that realistically speaking, anything the community does will be too little too late to counter the inevitable onslaught of gratis non-free voice and video everywhere on the web.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[xtracto]

And most importantly is to include ease of use in the "as good as" metric. Open Source developers usually think that it is enough that a program performs task openX better than program closedY without considering that the interface and intuitivness of the application is what counts for the majority of the people.

I remember I read somewhere that there was a Skype plugin for Pidgin, but you had to sacrifice a chicken on your keyboard during a full moon of April to make it work.

The reason why skype became so popular is because of the two big red and green buttons. That's all you need to talk to someone. All the NAT and proxy traversal capabilities made it very easy to use for all users.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[bryan1945]

"...as long as Skype continues to work on Windows/Mac and is free, there's not much reason for most people to switch."
Also on smartphones. I host a meeting every other week, and the one guy Skypes in on his phone (Android, I think). And the other guy who is on some type of Linux. I'm really the only techy, and they (about 12) managed to figure out Skype with only a few pointers from me. So don't underestimate ease of use! We tried Ventrilo a couple of times, and it was a bit, cumbersome.

Re:Patents can be avoided and new servers created

[BLKMGK]

The DOJ and others have signed off on this purchase already? The shareholders? Wow, that was FAST! /sarcasm

Methinks it's not quite a done deal yet...

Vanilla Skype

[Anonymous Coward]

in 2006 at RECON, 2 guys from EADS presented on that subject:
http://recon.cx/en/f/vskype-part1.pdf
http://recon.cx/en/f/vskype-part2.pdf

Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

It's protected. Lawyers may bark, and pound a table or two, but ultimately, they'll fail.

Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve the ability the interoperability of computer programs

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[hedwards]

It is, however they can sometimes shake something out that prevents the exemption from applying. Projects which rely upon reverse engineering have to be very careful that they properly shield themselves from information which might make the immunity go bye bye

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[dandaman32]

That refers to copyright law (or at least the US's convoluted idea of it). The reverse engineer is within the DMCA, but that doesn't matter if he's violating patents -- if, in fact, he's in a country that has software patents (i.e., the US). As some redditors pointed out, his lack of fluency in English seems to suggest otherwise.

If he is in the US, he can still be sued for violating the patents Microsoft owns on the protocol, although I think Microsoft is less likely to be evil about it than the other former candidate buyers.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[John.P.Jones]

Don't you have to do this in a prescribed fashion involving two teams, one to write a formal spec (with access to the original) and then hand that spec off to a second group that must work entirely off the spec? If this procedure was not followed the results would be tainted.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Dunbal]

Not to mention that the DMCA fails to apply at all in places like Russia.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

... and they'll also bankrupt you while in court. Right or wrong, normal people can very rarely afford to go up against giant megacorporations.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[chemosh6969]

It's a good thing you didn't cut out the rest of what it says....oh wait, you did and that actually changes the meaning of the snippet you posted. To continue where you left off: (i.e., the ability to exchange and make use of information). The section states: (f) Reverse Engineering.— (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title. (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section. (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term interoperability means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if someone actually had internal knowledge of the original implementation.

Unless they've actually got a Skype engineer on their team, none of them have any knowledge of the internal details and are by definition only reverse-engineering

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[johanatan]

What's the rationale behind that restriction? Is the team that produces the spec going to become so tainted by being intimate with the original that they cannot think freely enough to implement their own original work to spec? Was the original truly so advanced that few other humans (if any) could produce it without this taint? How do such thoughts pollute otherwise pristinely creative rational machines anyway? Surely these machines (the human minds) are advanced enough to separate reason itself from reasoning about reasoning; in fact, that's the main feature that separates the human mind from a mere computer.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[exomondo]

If he is in the US, he can still be sued for violating the patents Microsoft owns on the protocol

You mean Skype.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's safest to do it like that, because it lets you prove there was no copying going on. But if you don't in fact copy code, you're perfectly legal to do all the work yourself or with one team -- just have fun proving you're legal in court. (Remember, there's no concept of "reasonable doubt" or "presumption of innocence" in civil cases -- if they submit even the flimsiest evidence, and you don't counter it with equally strong evidence, you lose.)

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[petermgreen]

AIUI you don't HAVE to but if you do it's much easier to avoid inadvertantly violating copyright and/or mount a defense against accusitions of doing so if you do it that way. In particular there may be some things that only have one or two reasonable ways to implement them but are nonetheless complex enough that a court may consider them eligible for copyright.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Robert Zenz]

No, he meant Microsoft.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[richlv]

that' not reverse engineering. reverse engineering is getting those specs without any access to the original spec.

my brain fails me with recalling the name for what you describe, but it suggests names like dark room implementation/specification.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[bhtooefr]

The problem is, sure, humans are capable of separating the thoughts.

But how do you prove that they did that? And, in a civil suit, the standard for a judgement against them is far, far lower than the standard for a criminal conviction.

If there's two separate teams of people that can be demonstrated to have been sealed from one another - one that creates an API doc from the actual code, and one that creates an implementation from the API doc - with a third neutral team of lawyers that have both the actual code and the API doc to compare for any potential violations, before the implementing team gets the doc, then you've got a quite reasonable amount of proof that you did it right.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

The main issue I would think they have is identifying the client to the network, without using a trademark name and without getting black listed. After all, the clients do identify themselves in the protocol.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[exomondo]

But Microsoft doesn't own Skype, hence they don't own the protocol.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Robert Zenz]

Did you even look at the link I provided? It's the Slashdot article about how Microsoft bought Skype.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[exomondo]

Did you even look at the link I provided? It's the Slashdot article about how Microsoft bought Skype.

Did you even read the article in it? They have put in an offer that Skype's shareholders have said is agreeable, the sale hasn't even passed through FTC regulators yet, MS are still far from actually owning Skype, it looks like they will, but they certainly don't yet. The point is they most certainly do not own Skype IP and absolutely cannot mount legal challenges based on it.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[Robert Zenz]

Yes, I did.

Updated at 12 midnight. Microsoft has bought Skype for $8.5 billion, in an all-cash deal.

Re:Reverse-Engineering for Interoperability

[exomondo]

Yes, I did.

Updated at 12 midnight. Microsoft has bought Skype for $8.5 billion, in an all-cash deal.

Except that isn't actually correct, the deal has to pass through the FTC, which it has yet to do. You can even see on Skype's about page they still list being owned by Silver Lake? Why is that? It's because the deal is yet to be finalised, because the regulators take time on an aquisition of this size. The deal is done in principle but MS does not yet own the Skype IP.

FTFA

[cultiv8]

The remaining question to ask is what’s the point of doing this reverse engineering? Skype is a free-to-use service for the most part. You do pay for non Skype-to-Skype calls, and have to use the official software, but is that really enough to make users desire an alternative?

Yes.

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

The remaining question to ask is what’s the point of doing this reverse engineering? Skype is a free-to-use service for the most part. You do pay for non Skype-to-Skype calls, and have to use the official software, but is that really enough to make users desire an alternative?

There are many platforms that don't have a skype client, such as blackberry.

(Yes, there is official skype software for Verizon blackberries. It checks the handset's home carrier and won't run on others)

Re:FTFA

[sourcerror]

Not Christ, RMS. There's a difference.

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because different applications need to interoperate over a common api. Imagine having to to run AOL IM, MSN, Skype, IRC, and other client programs to communicate with everyone you know... It takes up unnecessary resources and requires the user to know 5 times as many interfaces.

Re:FTFA

[godrik]

There is much more to that. The skype protocol being unknown made people wonder what is actually going through the network. Some institute such as INRIA (A french research institute in computer science) forbid the use of skype partly for this reason. As far as we knew, skype might piggyback some request for computation and "steal" some CPU time to sell it. Knowing the protocol should clear that out.

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to their respective adherents.

Re:FTFA

[theNAM666]

In the words of Sir Edmund Hillary, the reason is, "because it's there."

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

This goofy shit is exactly why I come to Slashdot less and less lately.

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

One has had wars, pain and suffering inflicted in His name. The other is Jesus.

Re:FTFA

[tincho_uy]

This is the second time I read about this, and yet I commonly talk over Skype with INRIA researchers...

Re:FTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the key point is interoperability. If I send an email to you, I might be using Thunderbird, and you can be using Outlook. But if you want to call me from Skype, then I have to have Skype too. If I want to deploy a proper (corporate) VoIP system, then (for all its faults), SIP is the right way to go. But at the moment, that means other people at my company can't call people who only use skype, and that customers who want to call us (and who may already have Skype themselves) have to install a SIP system too. Now, we can make the two interoperate :-)
Also, we can now have real encrypted calls over a widely available network.

Re:FTFA

[godrik]

That's France, nobody really care about such a restriction :) When I was working for INRIA, I was using skype when necessary.

In the same way, INRIA researcher should not use gmail professionaly. Once again, people don't care too much. But that's the policy...

Re:FTFA

[theskipper]

Bravo.

Heh - bad timing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but reverse engineering the encryption of the protocol...wouldn't that open the doors to people "listening in" to calls?

Re:Heh - bad timing...

[Kjella]

No. You do realize most encryption algorithms are published for all to see, right? Unless Skype is doing something very stupid in the key exchange, it's just as secure as before.

Torrent here

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the torrent if it gets taken down. http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6442887

Reverse engineering for interoperability

[Anonymous Coward]

Reverse engineering for interoperability reasons is explicitly allowed under US copyright law.

And of course, the USA doth not the whole world make.

booo ya

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries. In the US its not illegal to reverse engineer protocols for compatibility.

Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve the ability the interoperability of computer programs (i.e., the ability to exchange and make use of information). The section states:

Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Skype is locked up in Microsoft land. People should focus their attention on something that's actually open, like Jitsi.

Re:Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Jitsi blows. Skype does not. This is the only thing that matters.

Re:Waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hardly. There's still anal, double penetration, fisting, and threesomes to consider.

Re:Waste of time

[DarwinSurvivor]

Fine, don't like jitsi? No problem. The DIFFERENCE is that Alice can run Jitsi and Bob can use Asterisk (which can interface with a normal phone), Ekiga, Empathy, LinPhone, Twinkle, SipDroid (on an Android machine), or any other of about 1000 programs to talk to Alice, without her having to give a damn what version of what software Bob is using. Contrast that with Skype where Alice can run Skype and Bob can run, well, Skype...

Re:Waste of time

[devjoe]

The point is to develop the ability for users of Jitsi, Asterisk, Ekiga, Empathy, etc., etc. to talk with Skype users, while still also being able to talk with all the users of SIP programs, much in the way that we have IM programs that can communicate with IM users over various different protocols. Then Alice doesn't need to run two different programs to talk with both Skype and SIP users.

Just the facts, man.

[VortexCortex]

I thought we had already established that Interfaces to data formats (such as a protocol) consisted of only facts. These facts can not be copyrighted.

To me it seems MS will simply follow their standard procedure of "Embrace (purchase and/or adopt a standard), Extend (introduce incompatibilities), and thereby Extinguish." to thwart any sort of open source implementations.

Similar to their Zune device, which has embraced a standard USB interface and media protocol, but has been extended with a DRM challenge & response system to extinguish the possibility of any software but Microsoft's being used with the Zune.

IMHO, since Skype is actually a distributed Peer to Peer system (where some peers are used as relays or to coordinate NAT traversal for other peers), why not simply ditch Skype and create our own low cost system? Some type of PGP like system can be used to implement a distributed authentication/registration system, and perhaps Asterisk could be in our own homes (w/ landlines) to provide outgoing phone calls. Recent laws have made me wary of allowing others to out-dial from my node (to a select group of local area codes), but it is a type of solution that that we used in the BBS days...

Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has been forced to release protocol and API information as part of anti-trust settlements. Would this not also apply to subsequent Microsoft acquisitions? Microsoft really isn't in a very strong position regarding proprietary protocols. Also, reverse engineering is legal.

Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stop calling every single person who is tinkering with code a 'researcher'...

Re:Title

[Jahava]

Please stop calling every single person who is tinkering with code a 'researcher'...

Researcher: One who conducts research.

Did he conduct research? Yes.

Then he is a researcher.

(il)legality has nothing to do with it

[Lead Butthead]

The real question is does the "offender" has the financial resource to defend it. Large corporations have very deep pocket and army of lawyers. Does (s)he?

Re:(il)legality has nothing to do with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Such tactics might work in the US but not in the civilized world.

Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[w0mprat]

Fantastic yet another open-source knock off clone of something proprietary that is just going to kick a hornet's nest of patent trolls and lawyers. Instead of that, how about a clean-sheet fully-original independant open alternative?

In software there is a Jazillion ways to solve a problem and it's doubtful the incumbent solution is the very best, why do you need to copy or reverse engineer anything in the software world except for lack of creativity, inspiration and originality?

It's perfectly ok of course to admit your ripping off an algorithim because you can't come up with something better, and want to make a statement by slapping an open licence on your rip off.

It'll never catch on of course, because a reverse-engineered skype protocol it can't be used in any major project because of the aforementioned hord of rabid lawyers.

OSS can do it's own thing, and can do it very well. There are sucess stories of originality from Firefox to BitTorrent and others. Just please not another me-too project that sets open software back a couple of years in terms of widespread acceptance.

Please don't feed the patent trolls.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[king neckbeard]

In software there is a Jazillion ways to solve a problem and it's doubtful the incumbent solution is the very best, why do you need to copy or reverse engineer anything in the software world except for lack of creativity, inspiration and originality?

Reverse engineering is an absolute necessity for compatibility, and compatibility is often an absolute necessity for success. Being the best product often isn't enough.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[CFTM]

Emerson was the first one to popularize the myth that if one were to "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door", and yes for the pedants out there I realize this is a misquotation of what Emerson really said, but the juice of it is a maxim that many individuals use to understand the process of innovation. Unfortunately, when observed through the lens of history, the maxim does not hold water.

The truth about innovation is that it occurs when the right mix of entities are brought together in a way that has never been done before to create a distinct advantage in the market. To illustrate this point, look at what Henry Ford did with the Model-T and how he altered the landscape of factories throughout the world. He didn't invent new technologies, he took technologies being utilized in other industries and adapted them for his needs. Thereby allowing for a streamlined factory where metal came in one end, and completed cars came out the other end. There are many entities involved in innovation and I've merely down a fly-over of what Henry Ford did, but I think it helps to illustrate the point that I was making at the beginning ... Being the best product is never enough.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[DarwinSurvivor]

You mean SIP? The idea of reverse-engineering Skype is so we can make software that works with multiple protocols. It used to be that if you had friends on ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, SIP and Jabber, you had to run 4 different programs. Now you can use pidgin, empathy, BitlBee, etc to connect to all of them seamlessly as one. If we can get Skype's protocol added to that list, we can dump yet another stupid "this app only talks on one protocol" application.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[Anonymous Coward]

An incumbent solution enjoys an existing user base and that advantage has nothing to do with it being a superior solution. Interoperability with that user base is essential to transition to the superior open alternatives that exist in almost every space. Pretty much every open "clone" is superior in many areas but the only ones that succeed inter-operate.

Firefox is a good example. A web browser is hardly novel and firefox could have never had a chance if it weren't accessing the same resources as IE (the web, or the other existing users in the case of VOIP) and interoperability solutions didn't exist (like user agent switchers that lied and told sites the browser was IE). The builders of the browser spent a great deal of time making the IE driven web design world work with their browser, reverse engineering how IE rendered pages and making them render in their browser.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents can go hang. What did the patent on arithmetic coding or Lempel-Ziv do except delay the state of the art? What are patents on wavelets and interframe prediction doing except delaying the state of art? Just don't recognize them. If that means you have to release anonymously, so be it.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[Narcogen]

Emerson was the first one to popularize the myth that if one were to "Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door", and yes for the pedants out there I realize this is a misquotation of what Emerson really said, but the juice of it is a maxim that many individuals use to understand the process of innovation. Unfortunately, when observed through the lens of history, the maxim does not hold water.

Well, a better mousetrap (or, for that matter, a better myth) need not hold water as long as it can reliably hold mice.

If there's a distinction to be made, it is the part where mice do not suffer (or should I say benefit?) from network effects. If a better mousetrap does a better job of catching my mice, that's all I care about, and so the only friction for the transition to the new mousetrap is how much it costs me in money, time, and effort.

The Skype problem is not like that at all. It's a significantly more difficult problem than, say, making a better OSS browser, email client, or even an entire operating system, because all of those experience network effects to a lesser degree than audiovisual communication. In some cases this is just because of the nature of the product and its intended uses, and in other cases it is because of widely used standards like TCP/IP, POP, SMTP, IMAP.

What of SIP? The problem with SIP, of course, is that SIP, as a protocol around which operators have built a business model, does not do what Skype does. Interoperability between subscribers of rival SIP operators is not free; presence is not usually supported, and there is no method for peer discovery between separate SIP switches. Calling between such subscribers is usually conducted, not directly, but through the PSTN (or is treated, and billed, as if it is, even if the two operators terminate calls between themselves directly, so to the end user, it's all the same.)

Skype is like one big SIP operator that connects to the PSTN. It's walled off from any other IM providers, or from any populations not using the official Skype client, servers, and protocols, but that's the value in it-- nobody has been able yet to drive a wedge between the Skype app and the Skype service (as was long ago done with ICQ) or to allow for separate groups or individuals to establish their own, separate workalike system (as is done with Jabber/Jingle or SIP).

Skype has value because of how open it isn't, because being as open as these other systems ultimately reduced network effects and reduced the influence the owner of the application has over the operation of the network.

An unofficial, Skype-compatible client that can't be influenced by Microsoft or kept off the network will start the ICQ process in motion, and prevent Microsoft from monetizing Skype the way ICQ first did, by inserting advertising content in the way of free functionality by direct control over the client software.

An unofficial, Skype-compatible server that isn't administrated by Microsoft will start the Jabber/SIP process in motion, dividing the Skype population and making the whole worth less than the sum of its parts, rather like the situation now with SIP operators-- all of which act a lot more like traditional telcos than Skype does, for what that's worth.

The degree to which one or both of those things reduces the value that Microsoft can get from Skype is not directly proportional to the degree to whcih they can help build value for anyone else, either the makers of those alternatives, or the users of them. I'd say there's a nonzero chance of those things eliminating all value in Skype for all players unless standards-based interoperability, at least as good as what exists today on the PSTN (and hopefully a good deal better) becomes widespread. It's difficult to see how that evolves from the current situation without regulatory oversight; nearly all market forces are actively working against it.

Re:Please don't feed the *patent* trolls.

[CFTM]

Truth be told, your technical analysis is above my pay grade. I don't say that to dismiss your point, but just to say I won't comment on the specifics of the skype protocol and what it offers for the internet. With that said, I believe you've missed the forest for the trees in my comment. I was merely taking the position that innovation is driven by networks of people, not superior technology. The position that I illustrated was not born from any research I did, but the research done by a professor at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. I saw him speak on this very topic and he had a very compelling argument for the conclusions he reached during this speech.

Andrew Hargadon
His Book

And I am soon to be a student at UC Davis, GSM. I don't bring this up to toot my own horn (and it's only a very good business school not an elite one), but rather to say that there's a possibility that I may have begun drinking the kool aid :)

Pidgin plugin

[hey]

I would like to see a Pidgin plugin for Skype!

Re:Pidgin plugin

[DarwinSurvivor]

Hmm, I wonder how BitlBee (which now has support for lib-purple) would handle video (or at least audio)...

ICQ anyone?

[garaged]

History repeats itself

Not new...

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this wikipedia article incorrect? It has been out there for a year or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype_protocol

Samba has done exactly this for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't do anything to anyone who makes their own implementation.
It's just like samba. and msn messenger, and almost everything else out there.

So long as you didn't look at their code, and did it yourself from scratch it's okay.

Re:Samba has done exactly this for ages

[Robert Zenz]

Unfortunately it's not Oh-Kay considering the U.S. Patent Law. Of course, the question is if implementations will be made by people in the U.S. and if Microsoft hodls any patents at all related to the protocol.

opportunity for Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about it for a minute. There is an opportunity for Microsoft to make lemonade from lemons and ca$h in...

That would be if they come out with a public statement that they do not object to non-MS implementations of Skype protocol nor of use of a non-abusive non-MS implementation with the Skype network; with the proviso that MS is not in any way responsible for the performance of non-MS implementations on the Skype network.

It would be like Samba all over again. The "it's not free software" barrier to deployment is removed, but MS' non-free implementation will always be the latest and greatest version. The free implementations would be in a game of catch-up.

That's actually a nice place to be if you are a proprietary software vendor. "Yes, you can use it for free; but our fee-based product is better."

It also relieves them of the need to support non-favored platforms. "We're no longer developing the Linux Skype client since the GNU guys have their own version which works well enough."

Remember that MS would still own the protocol and its future direction. The burden of compatibility is on the free software.

The value of Skype protocol and code was in keeping it secret from the likes of MS. Now the value is the Skype user base, the unlimited ability to deploy it in products such as Windows however MS desires, and the fee-based services.

Suspect

[klapaucjusz]

The third zipfile contains no less than 443,000 lines of code (not counting a number of duplicates under _old), including ports to Virtual C++, Borland C and Gcc under Unix, different versions of the protocol parser, and so on. The few bits I've looked at are written competently and with confidence, there's none of the "this byte is 42 in all messages, I don't know why" that you'd expect in reverse-engineered code.

It's either a leak of Skype's code, or a decompilation; it's certainly not a reimplementation. --jch

Re:Suspect

[jonwil]

Based on the fact that the code contains addresses in the names of some functions (mysub_SessionManager_CMD_RECV_Process_00788E80 for example) and based on the mentions of "Hexrays" in the source, this was most likely reverse engineered using IDA pro and the HexRays decompiler. (HexRays is a great tool, I use it myself for some things)

Re:Suspect

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the fact that the code contains addresses in the names of some functions (mysub_SessionManager_CMD_RECV_Process_00788E80 for example) and based on the mentions of "Hexrays" in the source, this was most likely reverse engineered using IDA pro and the HexRays decompiler. (HexRays is a great tool, I use it myself for some things)

Especially since one of the files is called "skype_part2_ida.zip";)

Nothing illegal here

[franzbischoff]

Every communication between you and a server is legally your property. You can peek, squeeze, record, play, read, study, understand it, etc. It's yours, comes and go from your machine and is open for being observed by any sniffer you want to use. It would be illegal if you crack the binaries, or hack into another one's communication. That's it.

1 major difference: XMPP isn't peer-to-peer

[toby]

For the rest, you can just read the reverse engineered specs... either this year's, or the details published in 2006.

Any tests on this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone tested this is the real thing and how far this guy got?

Loss of security, or just obscurity?

[Memroid]

One thing that making this protocol public is doing is allowing government agencies to more easily wiretap skype videos. I've interviewed at companies working on that very type of tool. Of course, the real security should be the encryption itself. However, without the platform itself being open source, only Microsoft will be able to make improvements to this encryption, if it is lacking.

Honestly, why bother.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother. Skype has been bought by M$ and so will now die. This kind of software is not even hard to write - its the server farm distribution and the popularity that rule. But we keep discovering there aint no room for dynasties in the noughties - anyone who can start something up has a chance of being the one.

So, Nokia dead. Skype dead. What now, something more from Grugle or will an outsider step up to the plate?

Microsoft will fight back...

[advocate_one]

the entire point of them buying Skype was so that they could embed a Skype client into windows phone to use to make calls to windows desktop Skype users and vice-versa... to use the large user base to lock it in to windows only... the Mac and Linux Skype clients would be deliberately kept way behind in features in order to discourage use.

Modems anyone ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't we come up with a distributed system ? I mean . ok .. ip phones have been around ages .. can't we just add a function that uses the local machine's modem to make local calls ? Where every machine logged on is used as a local access point to the telephone system ?

Just a thought

Skype fails consistently

[Dr.Ruud]

When people dialed in on our conference call systems with Skype, they most of the times sounded too unclear to be properly understood, which slowed down the groups in the meetings. So we had to ban it.

I use for example voipbuster, about EUR 40 per year for free calls to almost any number in the world that I might want to ever call, and it comes with a phone number too. Sound quality is just as good as any land line.

I HATE SKYPE

[little_bee]

I just needed to get this out of my system.

Samba?

[jtseng]

Why hasn't Jeremy Allison been sued yet by Microsoft/IBM?

Sigh.

[BrokenHalo]

I think this is the point where I suggest that you have a laughably small number of friends.

Seriously, if you have any significant number of friends of a non-techie pursuasion (or otherwise, but with more pressing preoccupations than obscure choices of VOIP clients), insisting that everybody uses stinkyfinger to contact you is an easy path to a lonely life.

I consider myself to be reasonably tech-savvy, having worked as a sysprog in the aerospace industry (among others) since the 1970s, and I am not ashamed to say that Skype, despite its drawbacks offers a good enough VOIP/IM client for most purposes. And I don't need to behave like an asswipe with my friends to pursuade them to use it.

Accessability makes it legal.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you guys all seem to eb forgetting is that this sort of thing is perfectly legal, especially if the researcher can claim "accessibility" reasons.

The blind, etc have a lot more rights to decompile/reverse engineer things than a sighter person does, and these rights expand to things created or intended for their use.

I know this, being blind myself.

Shut down, but with what ?

[DrYak]

They can yell at lawyers all the way they want, but they can't do much.

The inner workings of Skype can only be protected by software patents.

As long as the theoretical "libreSkype" is developed and hosted from within a country that doesn't recognise software patents, there are no problem.
(And given the comments on this blogs, seems like there are several Russians working on this. And currently Russia doesn't recognise software patents).

As long as no product based on libreSkype is sold in the US, and as long as distributions only offer Skype support as a end-user downloadable after-market plug-in (as currently with MP3, etc.), nobody is going to get sued.

Microsoft is hopeless in this situation.

Bushmanov Praises Skype in Long Interview

[judgecorp]

Efim Bushmanov is full of priase for Skype in a long interview. http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/interview/russian-reverse-engineer-praises-skype-30956 He says all good products will not be able to stay in the closet for long, and hopes to see a full open source implementation for Skype soon. Peter Judge eWEEK Europe

So I looked at that code

[AlexeyF]

Apparently not a lot of people bothered, although many were quick to repost the story under headlines like “Skype protocol reverse-engineered, source code published”. tl;dr: An important step on a long way is made, but it's going to take years until an alternative Skype client becomes reality.

Bushmanov based his work on de-obfuscated binaries of old versions of Skype for Windows which some other hackers had produced before (the first archive). He used IDA Pro to analyze the code (the second archive contains IDA databases) and gain understanding of some aspects of the protocol, which has layers of encryption and obfuscation. He also patched the binaries to add some logging. Basing on his findings, we wrote a program that can connect to a given [super]node and send an instant message for a given user. The third published archive contains a bunch of MS Visual Studio projects representing his progressive advancement.

To actually connect and send a message, the program needs so-called credentials. It seems to be a sort of session key issued by Skype login servers for 30 days or every time the user enters the password. Sean O'Neil wrote a hack in July 2009 that could connect to a login server and register a new user or log in as an existing one, procuring credentials. Since 2009 this has stopped working, probably because of changes on the server side. So instead Bushmanov used a hack to obtain credentials from running Skype for Windows.

To summarize: Bushmanov built upon prior work in the field and made an important step. There are hundreds of steps like that to be made until an alternative Skype client is possible. Microsoft has plenty of time to react, whatever strategy they choose.

One more thing: when Skype says they're going to do their best to defeat reverse-engineering attempts because the results can be used by spammers, they're lying. It's already possible to use Skype for spamming by automating it. What they're going to fight for is their business model, which relies upon there not being any alternative clients.