Seems to me AOL is not going to want to get involved unless the machines are constructed so as to restrict users to that ISP.
So what might be likely is that they contract with Gateway for a certain number of them, then Gateway contracts with the Taiwan suppliers to come up with the main assemblies such as LCD panels, motherboards, Gateway puts them together, and so on.
The Netpliance iOpener used a similar model. But they made the mistake of assuming hardware obscurity could prevent hacking and using another ISP. Virgin with its Netconnect IA was smart enough to require a long-term contract that made the machine too expensive to hack--even though it runs Linux already. We will have to assume that AOL will not release any without the same sort of long service contract for ISP.
The next question is pricing. It makes no sense to charge a large amount of money upfront for the hardware and at the same time something like $20 or $30 a month for the ISP, since it would be cheaper for anyone just to use a cheap PC and free ISP. So the hardware has to be cheap, perhaps like the iOpener's $99 (the result of months of price experimentation) or Virgin's $50 for each of the last two of three years.
The reason I think they will have to have strict terms of service, and emulate Virgin's $499 cost of ending service, is that it is very likely there is no economical way to prevent hacking of the IA. Netpliance has gone through about four ways to try to stop hackers, and each time their attempts have been overcome.
As soon as you can put a hard disk on one of these IAs you can make it boot into a different system and hack it, use it with a free ISP, or anything you can do with a PC or Linux box.
The remaining question is, whether the Taiwan manufacturers will want to put some of these together at a reasonable price for us Linux hackers. No doubt the design work on the aolOpener will help them. But LCD panels are still expensive, and it is not known if the Transmeta CPU will be any cheaper than the alternatives--Intel could probably match it with strongARM.
Without a hard disk drive, the IAs will just be like television sets--you can "watch" AOL just like any other channel as a consumer--you just can't produce or publish anything freely of your own. Using a Transmeta chip is really quite irrelevant in this picture--an IA that is plugged into the grid doesn't need to use less power, as there are no batteries--and the "code morphing" is not necessarily an advantage. Consider that the iOpener uses an old Winchip that probably was bought as surplus--they aren't produced any longer--what could be cheaper, and they are fast enough for what they do.
I believe AOL will target schools for these IAs, try to put them on every desk. It has already started the back end with the AOL School project online. It will be able to sell the whole package of IA hardware and service to whole school districts. The low frontend price will be subsidized by longterm contracts.
As other posters have noted, the result of such a plan would be to turn the Internet into something quite undesirable to those of us who prize freedom. I don't want my children watching AOL at school any more than have them turn on the Disney channel for education at home. We need to have some public space, some environment free from commercials and "product placement" and brand names and "non-offensive" interpretations of the truth. At my site I try to present free content to students. AOL School produces no content of its own--it just parasites off the free web for its portal. And I don't want AOL or Time Warner or Disney to produce the content--I want teachers to be able to do it for their own classes.
I had hoped we could do that voluntarily and freely on the web ourselves. But it seems that not all large corporations have bought into this vision. Instead, they see the web as a place to make bucks.
We will have to wait and see--I don't expect any of these IAs to become available before the Christmas buying season. The more interesting portable webpads using Transmeta won't be out until next year.
A musician might consider carrying out Lars's concept of "ownership" of "property" to its ultimate conclusion.
In France, in 1847, two musicians, Alexandre Bourget and Victor Parizot, refused to pay for their seats and for their drinks in the cafe des Ambassadeurs, because they were listening to their own music without getting paid for it. They subsequently formed the first collecting society to channel royalties to artists.
May I suggest that if authors and artists and musicians wish to reclaim their rights in the U.S. they deliberately emulate the brave act of these two musicians? Copyright law in the U.S. since the Bono Act of 1998 exempts bars and restaurants from having to pay such royalties. No doubt it would get some media attention if instead of suing Napster and their customers, some musicians instead dined at restaurants that played their music, and then refused to pay the bills, even going to jail if necessary?
(I have never heard Metallica's music, but if it is ever played in bars somewhere in the U.S. then this is something to consider. Or Metallica could sponsor such an act by lesser musicians.)
The cited article says, "Chakravarty, who wanted to patent some already known uses of the neem tree, was refused a patent, but the possibility of a rich, industrialized nation patenting a traditional source of healing aroused considerable anger."
However, a BBC report more recently states, "The patent was granted to the US Department of Agriculture and the W R Grace corporation.... It allows them to make a fungicide derived from the neem tree, which is indigenous to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh."
I think it's too late to rely on the USPTO to refuse to recognize such patents. Instead, those who wish to keep such "intellectual property" free must take out defensive patents. The problem is how to raise the money to enforce them. (Small bio-technology companies have found it so expensive to patent inventions that they now are relying mostly on trade secret laws instead--and so there is no "progress of science and the useful arts.")
An alternative would be simply to refuse to recognize them--South Africa went this route in threatening to produce AIDS drugs that were patented by rich country companies, but too expensive (they claimed) for Africans.
Recent editions of the book (sorry, I don't have my copy to hand) contain an appendix that details how Fahrenheit 451 was censored by the publisher in some editions, without the author's permission. Seems a bit ironical, doesn't it?
The first film version of 1984 (not the Hurt-Burton color one) was disliked by Orwell's widow. She bought up all the copies, the rights returned to her, and now that film is difficult or impossible to view. (She died before the second version was produced.)
Censorship need not be by the government, and bad laws are not the only way it is implemented. The film version of Fahrenheit 451, by Francois Truffaut points this up very well in just the initial frames: one sees telescopically a lot of television antennae over an English suburb. It is television that is the technology that causes these social changes, not the government. Montag in the film (but not the book) tries to explain why books are burned--it boils down to "books make people unhappy."
Neither Fahrenheit 451 nor 1984 is likely to be read freely online soon--their copyrights will extend for a long time. But their spirit of freedom and aim in preserving our book culture does motivate those of us "bookpeople" who scan books and place them online to share. Please join us! and please boycott those locked-up e-books being announced today!
Well, if you do read the whole story, you realize that what PPI is saying is the DMCA is not strong enough to stop services such as Napster.
For example, they make the claim that the law is not strong enough, because Napster can claim immunity as a common carrier, or not as a common carrier, or whatever (your point 1). However, the judge in the Napster case has already ruled they are liable--no change in the DMCA law is needed--they are just shouting to get campaign dollars for the Democrats from the RIAA.
They also claim that a judge should be allowed to grant an injunction under the DMCA, or that the time limits are not strong enough. False--Napster has not been able to escape current DMCA law--no change in the DMCA law is needed. (Their case might be stronger if the judge had gone the other way, but it is certainly premature now.)
I doubt that our poor U.S. representatives will be able to understand these affairs. Instead, Michael Ovitz should be called to testify about scour.c om. Heck, this is an ex-Disney president who is making millions as an agent representing talent. And his company enables trading music online! What do you think he would say about PPI's proposed legislation?
(I think he would say that if the legislation is relaxed, a lot of people could make money on this new technology. But if the DMCA is made more rigorous, it will only instantiate an obsolete business model and alienate customers.)
Judge Jean-Jacques Gomez told the firm that the auctions were "an offence to the collective memory of the country" and ordered it to report back on July 24 to explain the measures it had taken to prevent the French from participating in the sales.
It might be interesting to see how Yahoo.com is going to respond--how can you ban, technically, all the French people from visiting Yahoo.com? Simply filtering for the ".fr" domain would not be enough, would it? (I noticed that ICRAVETV said they had developed such a method, but it didn't help in their defense, it seems?)
Note that it's not the Yahoo site in France that is in question, evidently, but rather the U.S. site.
If Yahoo loses this case, next the French will require filtering all sites not in French (just so they can enforce their laws easier, like the proposed requirement that everyone retain email for 40 days)?
You're on the right track, don't stop just because there is a crowd behind you!
We can still fight to prevent works from being returned under copyright FROM the public domain. That has happened with the so-called TRIPS or GATT Uruguay Round trade agreement. It's complicated, but works first published outside the U.S. that went into the public domain because they weren't renewed, later were returned to copyright in the U.S. Mostly Mexican animated films, but maybe some valuable works too.
In addition, when England extended copyright term to 70 years instead of 50 years after an author's death, copyright was restored to works that had already entered the public domain. There were cries of outrage from some publishers, but they were bought off by promises they could sell off their remaining stock.
But as far as computer games are concerned, the law will be of no help to us. Instead, we should look to some sort of privately-organized Conservancy as I argue in another thread.
The Copyright Term Extension Act added 20 years to the term of copyrights existing as of 1998. Many copyrights of works first published after 1922 fell into the public domain earlier because they were not renewed in a timely fashion according to the law. But it is true that since 1999 works will not fall into the public domain, for another 19 years, and maybe forever, if Rep. Mary Bono and Jack Valenti get their way--"forever minus one day," to be compatible with the Constitution's "limited term".
You may learn more about our case against the Copyright Term Extension Act at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ . Add your comments to the OpenLaw forum.
The article goes on to say: "Hilary Rosen, the president of the recording industry association, said the group was aware of Scour Exchange's activities and was considering its options. But she said the organization did not want to rush to file lawsuits against each Napster-like service, hoping the decision in that case case might dissuade copycats. "We don't have any interest in litigating our way through the Internet," she said.
"But in reality the industry association might simply lack the resources to file enough lawsuits, given the boom in these services and the complexity of the attendant technology. Most recently, a 23-year-old Irish programmer created Freenet, which would enable people to share files online directly with one another in a way that would make it virtually impossible for copyright holders to find a central database or hub to blame for the interaction...."
"Brian Transeau [BT]... said people will inevitably trade copyrighted music on the Web, so artists might as well try to figure out how to capitalize on the sites making that possible. "It's an uncontrollable situation," BT said. "You might as well embrace it and make the best of it, or you're going to go insane trying to prevent it." "
Open software advocates DON'T NEED TO copy from proprietary software--they can make their own, better!
First, anyone concerned about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 should help with our lawsuit to overturn it--see http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and please join the OpenLaw discussion linked from there or just get up to date on the online briefs.
Unfortunately, even if Bono is overturned, no computer games will enter the public domain for many years, companies who own copyrights will have few incentives to make them free, and so-called "piracy" will remain the only option for most of those who wish to enjoy and learn from these old programs.
So, secondly, please help me somehow with an Intellectual Property Conservancy, even if Bono is not overturned. The idea is to set up a non-profit, independent, tax-deductible, educational and publishing corporation. This Conservancy could accept donations of online publishing rights, copyrights, patents, and so on. After the work goes out of print or is not worth retaining except defensively, then the copyright owner could get a tax deduction for donating rights so the work could become freely available.
The idea is that the public would benefit from this "progress of science and the useful arts" and so ought to PAY the creators or copyright owners, instead of TAKING without payment their products. In past years, copyright owners had to register and renew copyrights, but today many works are out-of-print and it is impractical to reprint them except online.
I happen to agree with RMS that software patents are bad and copyrights of proprietary software ought never to have been allowed. But I think with this Conservancy idea we could LEVERAGE current copyright law to enhance freedom for all of us.
Then a Games Museum could come about, along with donated old computers and machines and software, so that all of us could not only enjoy ourselves, but also learn from the wizards of yesterday, and make future games and other products even better.
The Conservancy idea is very practical. Not only has at least one company donated patents to the FSF, but recently another company was able to get tax deductions for such a gift. Proctor and Gamble donated some of its "too many" patents to Western Michigan University, which can do better packaging research and develop better products based on these patents. All of us might win thereby!
Screaming Lord Sutch recently passed away. I hope his message of liberation did not die with him.
Fancy, reading "Fanny Hill" on the radio to North Sea fishermen. And according to the headlines he made the Navy back off. So they pass another law to make all this illegal? What else is new?
Why not suggest one of the Norwegian ISPs make a deal with the University of Oslo to take over the.BV domain?
AFAIK Bouvet Island is the only location that has a country code domain suffix and that is not only completely uninhabited by humans but no doubt always was and will be.
I can't think of a better place for a virtual free domain. This is the way we get around the disconnection problem: allow connections only from computers in the.bv domain. That way we violate nobody else's laws. Of course, we could give out.BV domains to anybody. Then it's the problem of those other nations to keep their residents from connecting.
There remains the problem of Norwegian laws. I propose we freedom lovers simply send an invasion party to Bouvet Island. First we get the domain from ICANN, then we invade, then we secede, then we get recognized by the UN, then we launch our own satellites, and so on. Maybe we could write a science-fiction book about it to pay for it all. Oh, maybe somebody has already written one? Well, would we be violating copyright then?
Walnut Creek sells something called the "Complete FreeBSD Manual" (with or without CDs), 3rd edition. I notice that the Handbook refers to this book in the Bibliography.
I believe that Microsoft does have a financial interest in opposing the DMCA. In fact, many corporations are adversely affected by the DMCA and should support challenges to it.
For example, the zdnet story on the DMCA hearings at Stanford said this: "In January, Streambox found itself on the pointy end of the legal stick when a federal judge granted RealNetworks Inc. a preliminary injunction blocking Streambox's distribution of software used to capture and save RealAudio and RealVideo streams." [i.e., StreamboxVCR]
Microsoft is a big investor in Streambox. Streambox allows users to convert from Real format to Windows Media format. The DMCA stands in the way of both user freedom and Microsoft's freedom to license its format and compatible programs.
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it? Why?
Because he argues that Free Software writers should always detail the source of payment for their work--he doesn't here.
Well, if he understands it well enough to be able to point out the differences between his definition and the FSF's definition then I'd say he understands it. Or are you talking about whether or not he "gets it", which seems to mean a totally different thing.
I do think he argues against a straw man of his own manufacturing, and he wrongly attacks personalities instead of ideas.
if you seem to think this article is such a bad thing then surely they should respond to refute it? After all, not doing so might make people think that he was right...
No, I don't think Software Development magazine is the right forum for this discussion of ethics. Especially if it is reduced to personal attacks such as this.
As I said, Bertrand Meyer has the right to attack as savagely as he likes the development of Free Software such as Small Eiffel--he has the background and credentials to do so. That would indeed be interesting to readers of Software Develpment and Slashdot. Rants about Gun Control and World War II should be placed elsewhere. Ignoring them here isn't going to cause anyone to believe them true--it only treats them as the Trolls they deserve.
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it?
Meyer doesn't understand "free software"--he carefully points out that his definition of "free" is different from RMS's and the FSF's or Raymond's--then he can say the others are "extremists".
It would be interesting if Meyer explained whether or not he has a grudge against the Small Eiffel and other free Eiffel implementators--does he think that this "free" software is somehow unethical, and if so, why?
In spite of Meyer's emphasis on error-trapping and careful software, I found that the article itself refers discussion to a Forum at Software Development Magazine online--but I couldn't find the forum at the link given.
Most of his arguments are ad hominem--directed to personalities, and not logical arguments directed at philosophical ideas.
His arguments are unbalanced--it is not clear just why he thinks Free Software is important enough to spend so much time in this article discussing it. All he gives are negatives. Okay, "commercial" software is used by many people too--so what?
If I were ESR or RMS I would not dignify this article with a response. I don't choose the operating system I use because Linus is a pleasant guy to talk to, nor do I refuse to use Eiffel because Meyer rants about World War II too much.
He suggests that Free BSD and Linux are no good because a few experts looked at the source and found some errors in them. Meyer neglects to state the obvious: those errors can be found and fixed--what about all the errors in commercial software that can neither be found (except by blue screens of death) nor fixed by users?
Kerberos is about security. The IETF can make analyses and determinations about the security of its standard protocols. If the Microsoft implementation of the extension does not cooperate to work toward necessary security in Kerberos, IETF (and MIT) are right to point this out and route around it.
Microsoft started this discussion by publishing the document on the web. Now it has to live with the consequences.
As far as the relevance to the Slashdot case goes, I suppose you noted the hints that the implementation for the extension is not original, since it was already presented on the Kerberos mailing list by another?
... Unfortunately, it is too late for this to have any effect on the anti-trust procedings.
No, the remedy has still to be decided--it is not too late to consider that. Judge Jackson must decide how to construct a solution that will prevent exactly this sort of criminal activity in the future--if it is continuing, then a remedy would need to be immediately implemented.
Secondly, the guilty verdict now opens up a host of other lawsuits against Microsoft to collect damages. It's even possible that, for example, a Unix server manufacturer might sue Microsoft for anticompetitive practices intended to monopolize the market for network servers by leveraging monopoly control of the desktop market. The facts about Microsoft Kerberos might be entirely relevant to that case, and could conceivably involve a huge amount of money. The fact that Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust law is important here. There is already an EU investigation into this very matter.
It's even possible that a/. poster might file suit in a state such as Iowa against Microsoft. He might claim that Microsoft is illegally trying to enforce a shrink-wrap license under the laws of the state of Washington, when Iowa, the state he lives in and downloaded the document in, has laws declaring such enforcement null and void. This attempted enforcement might be claimed to violate his First Amendment rights. The Iowa attorney-general might remember certain Microsoft documents found during the discovery process in the antitrust suit that would be important here. Again, the damages could be considerable.
Most of the posts today are far from the facts. I for one am glad that Andover has responded with this letter. Legal discovery is not something that in previous cases Microsoft has been able to survive. But if they insist on trying to enforce under the DMCA, they not only will lose, I predict the DMCA may be found in conflict with the First Amendment.
For the purposes of discussion here, I refer you to the "Agreement" in the document in question, comprising the two pages (11-12) of the license agreement. (I did not download this from/. nor did I agree to the EULA.)
I think you will see that the EULA attempts to claim that the document is a trade secret. Furthermore, I trust you will see that it attempts to forbid anyone from implementing the description of the implementation of the protocol.
I believe you will also see that the EULA ('Agreement') specifically authorizes the other party to distribute the document for the purpose of security analysis:
"...Microsoft grants to you the following non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license, under any copyrights or trade secrets owned or licensable by Microsoft without payment of consideration to unaffiliated third parties, to reproduce and use a reasonable number of copies of the Specification in its entirety for the sole purpose of reviewing the Specification for security analysis."
The reason Microsoft wishes to insist on its copyright and that discussion is a "blatant infringement" is that it is trying to avoid going to court, by coercing/. as an ISP (under the DMCA) to withdraw the posts.
If it has to argue in court for an injunction or restraining order then it has to go beyond proof of copyright and show some pressing economic harm. But if it wishes to claim damages in this case it becomes complicated. First, if it actually published the document then it will be challenged as not a trade secret. Second, if it claims the document is unpublished then it will be challenged as not registered as copyrighted and so no damages could be awarded. If it claims the document is an unpublished copyrighted work then it will have to prove that by some documentation, which appears to be lacking now. Third, if it claims damages, that could only be because/. would be interfering with Microsoft's style of "innovation" by making proprietary what is in fact not theirs--i.e., their built-in incompatibility, which requires Windows 2000 Microsoft Kerberos Domain controllers, that they will have a proprietary advantage and make money from the document--and that/. is interfering with this. Then this does raise antitrust questions--and Judge Jackson has already indicated that Microsoft's "intellectual property" is not absolute, but can be taken if it is used in a monopolistic, anticompetive manner--as this surely is.
Since I would expect that Microsoft would find some difficulty in making a federal case out of this, and only damage themselves thereby, I hope they will simply drop the case. However, if they persist, then I hope Andover.net will continue in defending our rights to free speech and theirs to a free press. In the end, I hope also that Microsoft realizes it will be able to cooperate with the free software community to make all our software more secure, through open discussion.
So do you want/. to take responsibility for censoring all posts you make? I for one am glad that/. is apparently taking the position that it will not attempt to claim immunity under the DMCA and is not removing the posts. Or do you think the DMCA applies to you in Norway?
copyright infringement is not the way to go.
It remains to be seen whether Microsoft has a valid claim of copyright here--that is why the questions were asked. Apparently you believe that, just because somebody slaps a copyright notice and trade secret notice on some document, therefore the work cannot be used for discussion here on/.?
the GPL...would be NULL and void if copyright-laws are not upheld.
No, the GPL can be considered a contract; the copyright is a separate matter under law. It is true that if the GPL were not valid, then the license gives one no right to infringe on the copyright. But nobody is claiming here that all copyright law is invalid. Instead, Andover appears to be questioning the applicability of the DMCA. And I think you have some interest in making sure the DMCA does not apply to you in Norway.
Microsoft has done some distasteful things when you look at the kerberos case.. but breaking laws is not the correct way to counter this.
If you were the Anonymous Coward who first posted the document, then I might advise you to consider removing it, if that were possible.
But you have to remember that Microsoft in the name of senior vice president Bryan Valentine "published" this document on the web, in their own words, to make it available to the public for security analysis and to determine if it met the letter and spirit of the IETF Kerberos spec.
I will have to assume that your post, GauteL, is in exactly that spirit of free discussion on Slashdot. I support your right to your ideas and expression here, and I will defend you against anyone's attempting to force you to remove your expressions. In the United States, where the/. server is located, we have a First Amendment right to free speech, and/. has a First Amendment right to free press as a publisher. Nobody, including Microsoft, ought to be allowed to take that away from us.
According to the Upside article, "For its part, Real Networks Inc. (RNWK) submitted written comments arguing that none of its streaming media technologies should be exempted from the anti-circumvention rules. According to Real Networks, its use of technological copyright protection measures has actually made more content available to the public because copyright owners are more inclined to distribute their content over the Internet without fear of widespread piracy...This is not the first time Real Networks has sung the praises of the DMCA. Earlier this year, it successfully used the DMCA's 'anti-device' provisions to enjoin Streambox Inc. from distributing the Streambox VCR. According to Real Networks, the Streambox VCR circumvented Real Media's technological protection measures to allow users to record Real Media files."
But according to www.streambox.com ( a press release dated Jan. 18, 2000), the judge actually repealed a restraining order preventing Streambox from selling Streambox Ripper, which "enables consumers and content providers to convert RealNetworks files into Windows Media, MP3 and WAV formats." The statement goes on to ask Real to release the proprietary format on their copy switch so that owners of copyrighted material can choose to use Streambox VCR to turn on the copy switch or not.
It would appear that Streambox would be adversely affected by the form of the DMCA that Real Networks is lobbying for. And it is rather interesting that Microsoft Corp. appears to have invested in Steambox.
Would any Streambox or Microsoft people care to join the protest against the DMCA?
I repeat, it's not only free software people or digital pirates who oppose the DMCA. Most corporations ought to understand that it operates against their interests as well. And every citizen will be affected if media giants can turn all content into "pay-per-view". What do you suppose our kids in school will be viewing on their computers, courtesy of Intel, Microsoft, AOL, Disney, Time-Warner, and the RIAA and their friends?
A Council of Europe proposal from two weeks ago would require all computers to store all e-mail messages for 40 days "in case it is needed for a police investigation."
The same treaty proposal would prevent users of Symantec's software from defending against attacks by attempting to crack local passwords for security. Both these provisions were opposed by Ron Moritz, chief technical officer of Symantec, according to the report.
Hey, my computers don't want to be protected by Big Brother, they want protection from Big Brother.
Most citizens are unaware how the DMCA affects them, or will affect their lives even if "pay-per-use" becomes standard.
Furthermore, the hearings will probably be a love-feast of the media business types. So, if we mere users wish to get our point across and educate the public, we need to do it in a way that not only gets the public's attention but also informs them of the real issues. It's the DMCA that's bad, not necessarily all of copyright law, and whether or not you believe in free software.
Another thing, it's really sad reading this thread right after reading the thread of the development of BSD and how academics at that time were more interested in the truth, and software that worked, instead of just the money and power.
As an example of our failure in one instance of getting our point across, please see yesterday's triumphant "beacon of light" message from the attorney who won the CyberPatrol case--it was decided under the DMCA too.
every company who makes extensions to the Kerberos protocol for whatever reason may keep these extensions closed and is then not doing ANYTHING illegal whatsoever.
Absolutely. I haven't seen anybody here claim anything to the contrary, though.
The undisputed facts are that Microsoft "published" the description of their implementation on their website, and invited discussion and security review.
When this happened on Slashdot, Microsoft had Mr Weston write to Andover a letter claiming that/. posters "blatantly" infringed on Microsoft's copyright. In addition, Microsoft apparently claims that the document is a trade secret, and that posters who refer to Winzip are in violation of the DMCA.
Yes, Microsoft is entitled to "keep things closed" if they want to, but should they be able (1) to deny all fair use of the document (under the DMCA), (2) use government power to prohibit any discussion of the document (links and other postings they object to, which did not even quote the document), in violation of our First Amendment rights, (3) demand that Slashdot remove postings (in violation of its First Amendment rights as a publisher), and (4) manipulate the open standard with its publication in such as way as to prevent Samba implementors from reading the document and performing their own implementation (in violation of antitrust law)?
I believe if you understand all that you will realize that/. is being quite fair to Microsoft. This attempt to use copyright law to strip us of our rights may yet provoke us to sue Microsoft--and maybe then Microsoft will not like the consequences. Instead, Microsoft ought to realize it has make a mistake and try to correct that in order to regain our confidence and that of its customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Python is Guido's baby,
I observe that Van Rossum is getting married and going on a honeymoon. Congratulations! Let's see the wedding pictures.
But "Python" is an unusual name for the child. Let's see...what can we suggest...."Spam?"
Seems to me AOL is not going to want to get involved unless the machines are constructed so as to restrict users to that ISP.
So what might be likely is that they contract with Gateway for a certain number of them, then Gateway contracts with the Taiwan suppliers to come up with the main assemblies such as LCD panels, motherboards, Gateway puts them together, and so on.
The Netpliance iOpener used a similar model. But they made the mistake of assuming hardware obscurity could prevent hacking and using another ISP. Virgin with its Netconnect IA was smart enough to require a long-term contract that made the machine too expensive to hack--even though it runs Linux already. We will have to assume that AOL will not release any without the same sort of long service contract for ISP.
The next question is pricing. It makes no sense to charge a large amount of money upfront for the hardware and at the same time something like $20 or $30 a month for the ISP, since it would be cheaper for anyone just to use a cheap PC and free ISP. So the hardware has to be cheap, perhaps like the iOpener's $99 (the result of months of price experimentation) or Virgin's $50 for each of the last two of three years.
The reason I think they will have to have strict terms of service, and emulate Virgin's $499 cost of ending service, is that it is very likely there is no economical way to prevent hacking of the IA. Netpliance has gone through about four ways to try to stop hackers, and each time their attempts have been overcome.
As soon as you can put a hard disk on one of these IAs you can make it boot into a different system and hack it, use it with a free ISP, or anything you can do with a PC or Linux box.
The remaining question is, whether the Taiwan manufacturers will want to put some of these together at a reasonable price for us Linux hackers. No doubt the design work on the aolOpener will help them. But LCD panels are still expensive, and it is not known if the Transmeta CPU will be any cheaper than the alternatives--Intel could probably match it with strongARM.
Without a hard disk drive, the IAs will just be like television sets--you can "watch" AOL just like any other channel as a consumer--you just can't produce or publish anything freely of your own. Using a Transmeta chip is really quite irrelevant in this picture--an IA that is plugged into the grid doesn't need to use less power, as there are no batteries--and the "code morphing" is not necessarily an advantage. Consider that the iOpener uses an old Winchip that probably was bought as surplus--they aren't produced any longer--what could be cheaper, and they are fast enough for what they do.
I believe AOL will target schools for these IAs, try to put them on every desk. It has already started the back end with the AOL School project online. It will be able to sell the whole package of IA hardware and service to whole school districts. The low frontend price will be subsidized by longterm contracts.
As other posters have noted, the result of such a plan would be to turn the Internet into something quite undesirable to those of us who prize freedom. I don't want my children watching AOL at school any more than have them turn on the Disney channel for education at home. We need to have some public space, some environment free from commercials and "product placement" and brand names and "non-offensive" interpretations of the truth. At my site I try to present free content to students. AOL School produces no content of its own--it just parasites off the free web for its portal. And I don't want AOL or Time Warner or Disney to produce the content--I want teachers to be able to do it for their own classes.
I had hoped we could do that voluntarily and freely on the web ourselves. But it seems that not all large corporations have bought into this vision. Instead, they see the web as a place to make bucks.
We will have to wait and see--I don't expect any of these IAs to become available before the Christmas buying season. The more interesting portable webpads using Transmeta won't be out until next year.
A musician might consider carrying out Lars's concept of "ownership" of "property" to its ultimate conclusion.
In France, in 1847, two musicians, Alexandre Bourget and Victor Parizot, refused to pay for their seats and for their drinks in the cafe des Ambassadeurs, because they were listening to their own music without getting paid for it. They subsequently formed the first collecting society to channel royalties to artists.
May I suggest that if authors and artists and musicians wish to reclaim their rights in the U.S. they deliberately emulate the brave act of these two musicians? Copyright law in the U.S. since the Bono Act of 1998 exempts bars and restaurants from having to pay such royalties. No doubt it would get some media attention if instead of suing Napster and their customers, some musicians instead dined at restaurants that played their music, and then refused to pay the bills, even going to jail if necessary?
(I have never heard Metallica's music, but if it is ever played in bars somewhere in the U.S. then this is something to consider. Or Metallica could sponsor such an act by lesser musicians.)
The cited article says, "Chakravarty, who wanted to patent some already known uses of the neem tree, was refused a patent, but the possibility of a rich, industrialized nation patenting a traditional source of healing aroused considerable anger."
However, a BBC report more recently states, "The patent was granted to the US Department of Agriculture and the W R Grace corporation. ... It allows them to make a fungicide derived from the neem tree, which is indigenous to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh."
I think it's too late to rely on the USPTO to refuse to recognize such patents. Instead, those who wish to keep such "intellectual property" free must take out defensive patents. The problem is how to raise the money to enforce them. (Small bio-technology companies have found it so expensive to patent inventions that they now are relying mostly on trade secret laws instead--and so there is no "progress of science and the useful arts.")
An alternative would be simply to refuse to recognize them--South Africa went this route in threatening to produce AIDS drugs that were patented by rich country companies, but too expensive (they claimed) for Africans.
Recent editions of the book (sorry, I don't have my copy to hand) contain an appendix that details how Fahrenheit 451 was censored by the publisher in some editions, without the author's permission. Seems a bit ironical, doesn't it?
The first film version of 1984 (not the Hurt-Burton color one) was disliked by Orwell's widow. She bought up all the copies, the rights returned to her, and now that film is difficult or impossible to view. (She died before the second version was produced.)
Censorship need not be by the government, and bad laws are not the only way it is implemented. The film version of Fahrenheit 451, by Francois Truffaut points this up very well in just the initial frames: one sees telescopically a lot of television antennae over an English suburb. It is television that is the technology that causes these social changes, not the government. Montag in the film (but not the book) tries to explain why books are burned--it boils down to "books make people unhappy."
Neither Fahrenheit 451 nor 1984 is likely to be read freely online soon--their copyrights will extend for a long time. But their spirit of freedom and aim in preserving our book culture does motivate those of us "bookpeople" who scan books and place them online to share. Please join us! and please boycott those locked-up e-books being announced today!
Well, if you do read the whole story, you realize that what PPI is saying is the DMCA is not strong enough to stop services such as Napster.
For example, they make the claim that the law is not strong enough, because Napster can claim immunity as a common carrier, or not as a common carrier, or whatever (your point 1). However, the judge in the Napster case has already ruled they are liable--no change in the DMCA law is needed--they are just shouting to get campaign dollars for the Democrats from the RIAA.
They also claim that a judge should be allowed to grant an injunction under the DMCA, or that the time limits are not strong enough. False--Napster has not been able to escape current DMCA law--no change in the DMCA law is needed. (Their case might be stronger if the judge had gone the other way, but it is certainly premature now.)
I doubt that our poor U.S. representatives will be able to understand these affairs. Instead, Michael Ovitz should be called to testify about scour.c om. Heck, this is an ex-Disney president who is making millions as an agent representing talent. And his company enables trading music online! What do you think he would say about PPI's proposed legislation?
(I think he would say that if the legislation is relaxed, a lot of people could make money on this new technology. But if the DMCA is made more rigorous, it will only instantiate an obsolete business model and alienate customers.)
Judge Jean-Jacques Gomez told the firm that the auctions were "an offence to the collective memory of the country" and ordered it to report back on July 24 to explain the measures it had taken to prevent the French from participating in the sales.
It might be interesting to see how Yahoo.com is going to respond--how can you ban, technically, all the French people from visiting Yahoo.com? Simply filtering for the ".fr" domain would not be enough, would it? (I noticed that ICRAVETV said they had developed such a method, but it didn't help in their defense, it seems?)
Note that it's not the Yahoo site in France that is in question, evidently, but rather the U.S. site.
If Yahoo loses this case, next the French will require filtering all sites not in French (just so they can enforce their laws easier, like the proposed requirement that everyone retain email for 40 days)?
You're on the right track, don't stop just because there is a crowd behind you!
We can still fight to prevent works from being returned under copyright FROM the public domain. That has happened with the so-called TRIPS or GATT Uruguay Round trade agreement. It's complicated, but works first published outside the U.S. that went into the public domain because they weren't renewed, later were returned to copyright in the U.S. Mostly Mexican animated films, but maybe some valuable works too.
In addition, when England extended copyright term to 70 years instead of 50 years after an author's death, copyright was restored to works that had already entered the public domain. There were cries of outrage from some publishers, but they were bought off by promises they could sell off their remaining stock.
But as far as computer games are concerned, the law will be of no help to us. Instead, we should look to some sort of privately-organized Conservancy as I argue in another thread.
not exactly.
The Copyright Term Extension Act added 20 years to the term of copyrights existing as of 1998. Many copyrights of works first published after 1922 fell into the public domain earlier because they were not renewed in a timely fashion according to the law. But it is true that since 1999 works will not fall into the public domain, for another 19 years, and maybe forever, if Rep. Mary Bono and Jack Valenti get their way--"forever minus one day," to be compatible with the Constitution's "limited term".
You may learn more about our case against the Copyright Term Extension Act at http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ . Add your comments to the OpenLaw forum.
What a pathetic story! See http://www.theonion.org/oni on3618/kid_rock_starves.html.
Meanwhile, The New Times reports http:// partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/05/biztech/ar ticles/22tune.html that some guy named Michael Olvitz owns most of Scour.com. And Scour Exchange allows users to trade copyrighted music online!!!
The article goes on to say: "Hilary Rosen, the president of the recording industry association, said the group was aware of Scour Exchange's activities and was considering its options. But she said the organization did not want to rush to file lawsuits against each Napster-like service, hoping the decision in that case case might dissuade copycats. "We don't have any interest in litigating our way through the Internet," she said.
"But in reality the industry association might simply lack the resources to file enough lawsuits, given the boom in these services and the complexity of the attendant technology. Most recently, a 23-year-old Irish programmer created Freenet, which would enable people to share files online directly with one another in a way that would make it virtually impossible for copyright holders to find a central database or hub to blame for the interaction...."
"Brian Transeau [BT] ... said people will inevitably trade copyrighted music on the Web, so artists might as well try to figure out how to capitalize on the sites making that possible. "It's an uncontrollable situation," BT said. "You might as well embrace it and make the best of it, or you're going to go insane trying to prevent it." "
Open software advocates DON'T NEED TO copy from proprietary software--they can make their own, better!
First, anyone concerned about the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 should help with our lawsuit to overturn it--see http://eon.law.harvard.edu/eldredvreno/ and please join the OpenLaw discussion linked from there or just get up to date on the online briefs.
Unfortunately, even if Bono is overturned, no computer games will enter the public domain for many years, companies who own copyrights will have few incentives to make them free, and so-called "piracy" will remain the only option for most of those who wish to enjoy and learn from these old programs.
So, secondly, please help me somehow with an Intellectual Property Conservancy, even if Bono is not overturned. The idea is to set up a non-profit, independent, tax-deductible, educational and publishing corporation. This Conservancy could accept donations of online publishing rights, copyrights, patents, and so on. After the work goes out of print or is not worth retaining except defensively, then the copyright owner could get a tax deduction for donating rights so the work could become freely available.
The idea is that the public would benefit from this "progress of science and the useful arts" and so ought to PAY the creators or copyright owners, instead of TAKING without payment their products. In past years, copyright owners had to register and renew copyrights, but today many works are out-of-print and it is impractical to reprint them except online.
I happen to agree with RMS that software patents are bad and copyrights of proprietary software ought never to have been allowed. But I think with this Conservancy idea we could LEVERAGE current copyright law to enhance freedom for all of us.
Then a Games Museum could come about, along with donated old computers and machines and software, so that all of us could not only enjoy ourselves, but also learn from the wizards of yesterday, and make future games and other products even better.
The Conservancy idea is very practical. Not only has at least one company donated patents to the FSF, but recently another company was able to get tax deductions for such a gift. Proctor and Gamble donated some of its "too many" patents to Western Michigan University, which can do better packaging research and develop better products based on these patents. All of us might win thereby!
Screaming Lord Sutch recently passed away. I hope his message of liberation did not die with him.
Fancy, reading "Fanny Hill" on the radio to North Sea fishermen. And according to the headlines he made the Navy back off. So they pass another law to make all this illegal? What else is new?
Why not suggest one of the Norwegian ISPs make a deal with the University of Oslo to take over the .BV domain?
AFAIK Bouvet Island is the only location that has a country code domain suffix and that is not only completely uninhabited by humans but no doubt always was and will be.
I can't think of a better place for a virtual free domain. This is the way we get around the disconnection problem: allow connections only from computers in the .bv domain. That way we violate nobody else's laws. Of course, we could give out .BV domains to anybody. Then it's the problem of those other nations to keep their residents from connecting.
There remains the problem of Norwegian laws. I propose we freedom lovers simply send an invasion party to Bouvet Island. First we get the domain from ICANN, then we invade, then we secede, then we get recognized by the UN, then we launch our own satellites, and so on. Maybe we could write a science-fiction book about it to pay for it all. Oh, maybe somebody has already written one? Well, would we be violating copyright then?
Walnut Creek sells something called the "Complete FreeBSD Manual" (with or without CDs), 3rd edition. I notice that the Handbook refers to this book in the Bibliography.
What is the relation between them?
when's microsoft going to donate money
I believe that Microsoft does have a financial interest in opposing the DMCA. In fact, many corporations are adversely affected by the DMCA and should support challenges to it.
For example, the zdnet story on the DMCA hearings at Stanford said this: "In January, Streambox found itself on the pointy end of the legal stick when a federal judge granted RealNetworks Inc. a preliminary injunction blocking Streambox's distribution of software used to capture and save RealAudio and RealVideo streams." [i.e., StreamboxVCR]
Microsoft is a big investor in Streambox. Streambox allows users to convert from Real format to Windows Media format. The DMCA stands in the way of both user freedom and Microsoft's freedom to license its format and compatible programs.
Microsoft or anyone else can join or donate to EFF through mailto:membership@eff.org.
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it? Why?
Because he argues that Free Software writers should always detail the source of payment for their work--he doesn't here.
Well, if he understands it well enough to be able to point out the differences between his definition and the FSF's definition then I'd say he understands it. Or are you talking about whether or not he "gets it", which seems to mean a totally different thing.
I do think he argues against a straw man of his own manufacturing, and he wrongly attacks personalities instead of ideas.
if you seem to think this article is such a bad thing then surely they should respond to refute it? After all, not doing so might make people think that he was right...
No, I don't think Software Development magazine is the right forum for this discussion of ethics. Especially if it is reduced to personal attacks such as this.
As I said, Bertrand Meyer has the right to attack as savagely as he likes the development of Free Software such as Small Eiffel--he has the background and credentials to do so. That would indeed be interesting to readers of Software Develpment and Slashdot. Rants about Gun Control and World War II should be placed elsewhere. Ignoring them here isn't going to cause anyone to believe them true--it only treats them as the Trolls they deserve.
This isn't news: it was published before March.
Meyer evidently was paid for this article. Where did he say that and how much was it?
Meyer doesn't understand "free software"--he carefully points out that his definition of "free" is different from RMS's and the FSF's or Raymond's--then he can say the others are "extremists".
It would be interesting if Meyer explained whether or not he has a grudge against the Small Eiffel and other free Eiffel implementators--does he think that this "free" software is somehow unethical, and if so, why?
In spite of Meyer's emphasis on error-trapping and careful software, I found that the article itself refers discussion to a Forum at Software Development Magazine online--but I couldn't find the forum at the link given.
Most of his arguments are ad hominem--directed to personalities, and not logical arguments directed at philosophical ideas.
His arguments are unbalanced--it is not clear just why he thinks Free Software is important enough to spend so much time in this article discussing it. All he gives are negatives. Okay, "commercial" software is used by many people too--so what?
If I were ESR or RMS I would not dignify this article with a response. I don't choose the operating system I use because Linus is a pleasant guy to talk to, nor do I refuse to use Eiffel because Meyer rants about World War II too much.
He suggests that Free BSD and Linux are no good because a few experts looked at the source and found some errors in them. Meyer neglects to state the obvious: those errors can be found and fixed--what about all the errors in commercial software that can neither be found (except by blue screens of death) nor fixed by users?
Kerberos is about security. The IETF can make analyses and determinations about the security of its standard protocols. If the Microsoft implementation of the extension does not cooperate to work toward necessary security in Kerberos, IETF (and MIT) are right to point this out and route around it.
Microsoft started this discussion by publishing the document on the web. Now it has to live with the consequences.
As far as the relevance to the Slashdot case goes, I suppose you noted the hints that the implementation for the extension is not original, since it was already presented on the Kerberos mailing list by another?
No, the remedy has still to be decided--it is not too late to consider that. Judge Jackson must decide how to construct a solution that will prevent exactly this sort of criminal activity in the future--if it is continuing, then a remedy would need to be immediately implemented.
Secondly, the guilty verdict now opens up a host of other lawsuits against Microsoft to collect damages. It's even possible that, for example, a Unix server manufacturer might sue Microsoft for anticompetitive practices intended to monopolize the market for network servers by leveraging monopoly control of the desktop market. The facts about Microsoft Kerberos might be entirely relevant to that case, and could conceivably involve a huge amount of money. The fact that Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust law is important here. There is already an EU investigation into this very matter.
It's even possible that a /. poster might file suit in a state such as Iowa against Microsoft. He might claim that Microsoft is illegally trying to enforce a shrink-wrap license under the laws of the state of Washington, when Iowa, the state he lives in and downloaded the document in, has laws declaring such enforcement null and void. This attempted enforcement might be claimed to violate his First Amendment rights. The Iowa attorney-general might remember certain Microsoft documents found during the discovery process in the antitrust suit that would be important here. Again, the damages could be considerable.
Most of the posts today are far from the facts. I for one am glad that Andover has responded with this letter. Legal discovery is not something that in previous cases Microsoft has been able to survive. But if they insist on trying to enforce under the DMCA, they not only will lose, I predict the DMCA may be found in conflict with the First Amendment.
For the purposes of discussion here, I refer you to the "Agreement" in the document in question, comprising the two pages (11-12) of the license agreement. (I did not download this from /. nor did I agree to the EULA.)
I think you will see that the EULA attempts to claim that the document is a trade secret. Furthermore, I trust you will see that it attempts to forbid anyone from implementing the description of the implementation of the protocol.
I believe you will also see that the EULA ('Agreement') specifically authorizes the other party to distribute the document for the purpose of security analysis:
"...Microsoft grants to you the following non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, non-transferable, non-sublicenseable license, under any copyrights or trade secrets owned or licensable by Microsoft without payment of consideration to unaffiliated third parties, to reproduce and use a reasonable number of copies of the Specification in its entirety for the sole purpose of reviewing the Specification for security analysis."
The reason Microsoft wishes to insist on its copyright and that discussion is a "blatant infringement" is that it is trying to avoid going to court, by coercing /. as an ISP (under the DMCA) to withdraw the posts.
If it has to argue in court for an injunction or restraining order then it has to go beyond proof of copyright and show some pressing economic harm. But if it wishes to claim damages in this case it becomes complicated. First, if it actually published the document then it will be challenged as not a trade secret. Second, if it claims the document is unpublished then it will be challenged as not registered as copyrighted and so no damages could be awarded. If it claims the document is an unpublished copyrighted work then it will have to prove that by some documentation, which appears to be lacking now. Third, if it claims damages, that could only be because /. would be interfering with Microsoft's style of "innovation" by making proprietary what is in fact not theirs--i.e., their built-in incompatibility, which requires Windows 2000 Microsoft Kerberos Domain controllers, that they will have a proprietary advantage and make money from the document--and that /. is interfering with this. Then this does raise antitrust questions--and Judge Jackson has already indicated that Microsoft's "intellectual property" is not absolute, but can be taken if it is used in a monopolistic, anticompetive manner--as this surely is.
Since I would expect that Microsoft would find some difficulty in making a federal case out of this, and only damage themselves thereby, I hope they will simply drop the case. However, if they persist, then I hope Andover.net will continue in defending our rights to free speech and theirs to a free press. In the end, I hope also that Microsoft realizes it will be able to cooperate with the free software community to make all our software more secure, through open discussion.
Please Andover... remove the selected postings.
So do you want /. to take responsibility for censoring all posts you make? I for one am glad that /. is apparently taking the position that it will not attempt to claim immunity under the DMCA and is not removing the posts. Or do you think the DMCA applies to you in Norway?
copyright infringement is not the way to go.
It remains to be seen whether Microsoft has a valid claim of copyright here--that is why the questions were asked. Apparently you believe that, just because somebody slaps a copyright notice and trade secret notice on some document, therefore the work cannot be used for discussion here on /.?
the GPL...would be NULL and void if copyright-laws are not upheld.
No, the GPL can be considered a contract; the copyright is a separate matter under law. It is true that if the GPL were not valid, then the license gives one no right to infringe on the copyright. But nobody is claiming here that all copyright law is invalid. Instead, Andover appears to be questioning the applicability of the DMCA. And I think you have some interest in making sure the DMCA does not apply to you in Norway.
Microsoft has done some distasteful things when you look at the kerberos case.. but breaking laws is not the correct way to counter this.
If you were the Anonymous Coward who first posted the document, then I might advise you to consider removing it, if that were possible.
But you have to remember that Microsoft in the name of senior vice president Bryan Valentine "published" this document on the web, in their own words, to make it available to the public for security analysis and to determine if it met the letter and spirit of the IETF Kerberos spec.
I will have to assume that your post, GauteL, is in exactly that spirit of free discussion on Slashdot. I support your right to your ideas and expression here, and I will defend you against anyone's attempting to force you to remove your expressions. In the United States, where the /. server is located, we have a First Amendment right to free speech, and /. has a First Amendment right to free press as a publisher. Nobody, including Microsoft, ought to be allowed to take that away from us.
According to the Upside article, "For its part, Real Networks Inc. (RNWK) submitted written comments arguing that none of its streaming media technologies should be exempted from the anti-circumvention rules. According to Real Networks, its use of technological copyright protection measures has actually made more content available to the public because copyright owners are more inclined to distribute their content over the Internet without fear of widespread piracy. ..This is not the first time Real Networks has sung the praises of the DMCA. Earlier this year, it successfully used the DMCA's 'anti-device' provisions to enjoin Streambox Inc. from distributing the Streambox VCR. According to Real Networks, the Streambox VCR circumvented Real Media's technological protection measures to allow users to record Real Media files."
But according to www.streambox.com ( a press release dated Jan. 18, 2000), the judge actually repealed a restraining order preventing Streambox from selling Streambox Ripper, which "enables consumers and content providers to convert RealNetworks files into Windows Media, MP3 and WAV formats." The statement goes on to ask Real to release the proprietary format on their copy switch so that owners of copyrighted material can choose to use Streambox VCR to turn on the copy switch or not.
It would appear that Streambox would be adversely affected by the form of the DMCA that Real Networks is lobbying for. And it is rather interesting that Microsoft Corp. appears to have invested in Steambox.
Would any Streambox or Microsoft people care to join the protest against the DMCA?
I repeat, it's not only free software people or digital pirates who oppose the DMCA. Most corporations ought to understand that it operates against their interests as well. And every citizen will be affected if media giants can turn all content into "pay-per-view". What do you suppose our kids in school will be viewing on their computers, courtesy of Intel, Microsoft, AOL, Disney, Time-Warner, and the RIAA and their friends?
It's not the U.S. alone--the EU can't escape from responsibility and ridicule.
The Washington Post has a story from the conference. They point out:
Hey, my computers don't want to be protected by Big Brother, they want protection from Big Brother.
Most citizens are unaware how the DMCA affects them, or will affect their lives even if "pay-per-use" becomes standard.
Furthermore, the hearings will probably be a love-feast of the media business types. So, if we mere users wish to get our point across and educate the public, we need to do it in a way that not only gets the public's attention but also informs them of the real issues. It's the DMCA that's bad, not necessarily all of copyright law, and whether or not you believe in free software.
Another thing, it's really sad reading this thread right after reading the thread of the development of BSD and how academics at that time were more interested in the truth, and software that worked, instead of just the money and power.
As an example of our failure in one instance of getting our point across, please see yesterday's triumphant "beacon of light" message from the attorney who won the CyberPatrol case--it was decided under the DMCA too.
every company who makes extensions to the Kerberos protocol for whatever reason may keep these extensions closed and is then not doing ANYTHING illegal whatsoever.
Absolutely. I haven't seen anybody here claim anything to the contrary, though.
The undisputed facts are that Microsoft "published" the description of their implementation on their website, and invited discussion and security review.
When this happened on Slashdot, Microsoft had Mr Weston write to Andover a letter claiming that /. posters "blatantly" infringed on Microsoft's copyright. In addition, Microsoft apparently claims that the document is a trade secret, and that posters who refer to Winzip are in violation of the DMCA.
Yes, Microsoft is entitled to "keep things closed" if they want to, but should they be able (1) to deny all fair use of the document (under the DMCA), (2) use government power to prohibit any discussion of the document (links and other postings they object to, which did not even quote the document), in violation of our First Amendment rights, (3) demand that Slashdot remove postings (in violation of its First Amendment rights as a publisher), and (4) manipulate the open standard with its publication in such as way as to prevent Samba implementors from reading the document and performing their own implementation (in violation of antitrust law)?
I believe if you understand all that you will realize that /. is being quite fair to Microsoft. This attempt to use copyright law to strip us of our rights may yet provoke us to sue Microsoft--and maybe then Microsoft will not like the consequences. Instead, Microsoft ought to realize it has make a mistake and try to correct that in order to regain our confidence and that of its customers.