Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations 812
abartlet writes "As described in this Advogato entry, MS is trying to pull a swifty with their latest 'release' of their CIFS (the networked filesystem Samba implements) Technical Reference. The licence specifically prohibits any GPLed or (or LGPLed) program from implementing it, defining it as an 'IPR Impairing Licence'! Fortunately the CIFS community is about to release its own Technical Reference based on earlier MS documents and long experience in attempting to interoperate with the MS product." Microsoft's claim is completely ungrounded - nothing written by a third-party can take away Microsoft's intellectual property rights. But it makes a good (read: confusing to the general public) justification for preventing others from interoperating with their software.
Maybe Bill's Just Pissed He Got April Fooled? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess the point is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I guess the point is... (Score:2, Funny)
That's right...heck, I'm licensed to ill...
Don't be so sure (Score:3, Insightful)
These guys are not buying legalese for nothing. And even if the next round of bought-and-paid-for legislation doesn't make it on the books for a year or two, and they bring a baseless lawsuit, do you have $200,000 to defend yourself in court? Or will you just settle, pull your site and go home crying?
This is Microsoft saying "I dare you."
-David
Ladies and Gentlemen of the "Supposed Jury"... (Score:4, Funny)
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit.
I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when billions of dollars of recurring license revenue are on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests."
Re:I guess the point is... (Score:2, Informative)
MS make much mileage by demonstrating principles of the GPL that simply do not exist. For example: If I were to write an application that works on Linux, I am under no obligation to open my source code. On the other hand, if I write code that uses code from a GPL'd product, then I am using someone elses intellectual property, and - just as MS require you to abide by their license in order to use their IP - I am required to abide by the license under which the original codes author has licensed their work.
If you believe the FUD that MS have been throwing around regarding the GPL - then you've obviously never read it.
Re:I guess the point is... (Score:3, Informative)
There is also the "Unamerican" claims. When if fact the GPL has a lot more in common with the US Constitution than just about anything the likes of Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, etc have ever come up with.
If I were to write an application that works on Linux, I am under no obligation to open my source code. On the other hand, if I write code that uses code from a GPL'd product, then I am using someone elses intellectual property, and - just as MS require you to abide by their license in order to use their IP - I am required to abide by the license under which the original codes author has licensed their work.
Not quite you can use GPL code in any way you see fit. The conditions of the GPL only take effect if you distribute it, regardless of if you are an individual or a megacorp. (If you were a megacorp you could use modified GPL software world wide with no obligation to tell anyone how you had changed it.) Microsoft will tend to want to tell you how you can and can't use the software.They may want to impose diffent conditions depending if you are a person or corporation.
Also GPL tools are "non-viral" any original work you create using them is subject to whatever licence you may choose. Certain Microsoft tools attempt to impose on your copyright privileges.
XPL (Score:4, Funny)
Why not use every letter in the alphabet? It's only fitting, I guess, since there are a million ways to write code, why not have a million ways to license it?
I remember taking programming classes in college, and the #1 rule to writing code was don't write code, i.e., reuse existing code. With all these licensing schemes floating around, that's getting harder and harder, unles you only reuse your own code. Oh well...
(For the record, IPR sounds more like an Apple licenesing idea, what with the iMac, iPod, and tons of iSoftware.)
At least today's Friday...
No IPL! Please! (Score:3, Funny)
I work at a bank where we still (duh) use big iron. One thing you DO NOT want to do is IPL.
It's very bad, especially if someone tries to do it while people in other timezones are usings those mainframe apps!
(For the uninitiated, IPL = Initial Program Load. It basically means restart the whole group of apps on the machine. In the old days, I'm betting this meant rewind the tape and reboot the room... er, mainframe.)
XPL = Extreme Public License? (Score:5, Funny)
"You may use, modify, and redistribute this software freely, and must make it available to third parties under this license in the event that they are able to defeat you in a Grudge Match in The Iron Cage of Fury!"
Not reading that (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously. If you're even using Samba, I wouldn't go *near* any CIFS/SMB information released by Microsoft. Or anyone else who attaches licenses to practical information and calls it a "trade secret", for that matter.
Just for kicks... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just for kicks... (Score:4, Funny)
Ok so what.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This "LISCENCE" is for the documentation NOT the protocol. So friggin what, Samba team has done a great job reverse engineering other things before, wihtout docs.
Hell have a friend agree to the terms, read it, then TELL you how they do what they do, at that point there is no tactic agreement between you and microsoft, oyu recived the knowledge second hand and you partner had of course "no idea" that the information would be implemented in a GPL app.
Better yet, write a REVIEW of the documentation as a Journalist, a critique, perfectly acceptable under fair use laws, just make sure to critique the authors work on the spiciest bits of Information.
Re:Ok so what.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ok so what.... (Score:3, Interesting)
True.
Hell have a friend agree to the terms, read it, then TELL you how they do what they do...
Is there some sort of non-disclosure in the license in addition to just the bits about "don't implement this in a GPL app"? I'm not legal savvy enough to understand even the quoted bits of the license in the article. Is it somehow implied that telling somebody else what the protocol is after you've read it, is a violation of the license?
Haiku (Score:5, Funny)
Will encroach upon our rights
To control the world
Re:Haiku (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this a bit like... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:5, Informative)
This is like Kodak giving someone the recipe for the official Kodak set of chemicals, then telling them that they can't give that recipe to other people.
Microsoft is well within their rights under Copyright law here. Microsoft is giving people the opportunity to implement the CIFS specs, but not to redistribute them in a form which makes sublicensing compulsory.
The hole in the situation is that someone could implement the spec and release it to the Public Domain, since MS isn't forbidding ALL redistribution, only direct redistribution with compulsory sublicensing. That code could then be folded into a GPL'd product by a third party since they received the original code as PD, not under Microsoft's agreement.
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:3, Funny)
- A.P.
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Kodak told me *after* I had received their recipe what I can do with their recipe, I would tell them to go fly a kite. By making their recipe public they just destroyed any trade secrets they might have. I have no obligation to Kodak after they give me the recipe if I didn't agree to any before hand.
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:2, Redundant)
From the license [microsoft.com]:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact the GPL/LGPL are implied to be such licenses but MS is just going after them by name, not by characteristic. Create a license, called ALLGPL (Anti-Lawyering LGPL) that is cut and paste LGPL and it is not the LGPL, merely compatible with it. But MS then has the burden of proving that it is an IPR licenses which, of course, it is not.
Re:Isn't this a bit like... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the MS license specifically excludes by name the GNU GPL and LGPL, but it seems to me you could write your own version of the GPL, call it "Fred's GPL" (or whatever), and license under that. (Note that making a derivative work of GPL'd software is an entirely different thing than merely distributing software with (along side of) GPL'd software.)
(And if necessary, I'm sure you could get FSF's permission to make a "derivative work" of the GNU GPL in order to create Fred's GPL for this purpose.)
Clearly! (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that the Samba Team has created such a successful implementation of the same smb/cifs kills this completely. Note the "(costly)" part in my previous paragraph goes away if you use Samba instead of a WinNT Server. And no goofy licenses either(how many seats do I need to buy?). And now that Samba has set their sights on implementing recent features like Active Directory why wouldn't Microsoft be running scared? Take away this feature from Windows and you've undercut their monopoly on administration software of Windows networks.
What about NGPL&NLGPL? (Score:2, Insightful)
Kind of like gnu is not unix.. I just couldn't come up with anything as clever.
Not just GPL (Score:4, Troll)
This is kinda creepy.
Microsoft seems to have just banned any open source or even free (as in beer) CIFS implementations.
Then, my question becomes: what about interpreted languages? Many languages don't have a compiled form... does the license prohibit those?
Re:Not just GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
- distribute in source
- redistribute at no charge
...it shouldnt be to hard to not require these things... am I wrong? The BSD license has no such restrictions, right?
Re:Not just GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it interesting that they won't let you use licenses which put specific restrictions on derivative works, but not ones which forbid distributing them altogether. Would a license worded "you may not distribute derivative works *unless* you blah blah" where blah blah is the stuff Microsoft doesn't like work? I mean strictly speaking it doesn't require those things, you have the option to not distribute your derivative at all. (which you, of course, have with the GPL, but since it's specifically named forget it.)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just GPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not just GPL (Score:4, Funny)
Not creepy at all. It makes the loopholes quite clear.
The MSGPL license, for GPL implementations of MS protocols need only include the clause that changes must be available in source code form or in binary digits tattooed across the backside of the author, and that a license fee of one wet honey glazed ham is due if the software is used consecutively for more than sixty thousand years.
The Terms are far too restrictive (Score:5, Funny)
I find the terms of the MS compatible GPL to be far too restrictive.
First, 60,000 years is far too short. I fully intend to be alive, youthful, and in perfect health in 60,000,000 years. Second, at that time, swine from whence honey glazed ham is made may well be extinct, and while genetic decendents of Long Pigs such as Bill Gates and the Honorable Senator "Disney" Hollings may still be present, honey made hams made from such creatures may not strictly qualify under the terms of the license, making it impossible to adhere to the terms of the license at all upon its termination in a short 60,000 years.
Instead, may I recommend a termination date 60x10^4000 years, and a fee payable in 1 cm^3 of common hydrogen or the equivelent converted energy thereof, calculated from Einstein's e=mc^2, payable upon that date, or the final death of the universe, whichever comes first?
That would offer the freedom I require, and the payment option (a cubic centimeter of hydrogen) is likely to be obtainable even in 60x10^4000 years, assuming the other criteria of the license termination (the end of the universe itself) hasn't taken effect.
Re:Not just GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
- any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license
The GPL requires you do all those things [...] [This] license [only bans] the GPLYou're right, but for the wrong reason. (As an aside, the GPL does not require you to distribute "software" for no charge, only to provide access (or information about how to get access, for non commercial binary distributions) to the source (not the "software") at no more than cost-of-distribution). But the issue is actually the "other software distributed with" part. There is no open source-ish license that covers anything "distributed with". That's pure Microsoft FUD. The GPL explicitely extends to software linked with GPL source to produce a derivative product, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.
You're absolutely right that this is an attack on the GPL, but it's the LGPL prohibition that's the real eye opener. Consider that the Mozilla license is functionally equivelant to the LGPL, and it's not prohibited, whereas the LGPL is.
This isn't an attack on open source, nor even on "viral" licenses. It's a direct attack solely on the GPL and LGPL, and by extension the FSF. Battle on.
Re:Not just GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
However, just copying and renaming the GPL wouldn't be enough, I think. My bet is that the judge would just consider that sophistry, look on it as an attempt to make him and his court look stupid, and nail you twice as hard. However, if you did a complete rewrite from scratch on the language, it might well stand up in court if you had a decent lawyer. However, Microsoft would amend their license terms in about 5 minutes to add your license.
Finally, RMS didn't create the GPL to be incompatible with the BSD license. The terms of the GPL were incompatible with the old BSD, people asked RMS about it, and they were answered. The Microsoft license, OTOH, is specifically aimed at the GPL, and at Samba in particular. Furthermore, the language is designed to make people misinterpret the GPL as you did, restricting things it doesn't. And the GPL never never contained language calling the BSD license a "bend over and let the proprietary software companies rape you" license, while Microsoft uses the terms of this license to spread even more anti-GPL FUD by calling it an "IPR Impairing" license.
MS is not the only one with GPL problems (Score:2)
Intel and HP for example had problems with the GPLed Mono project [infoworld.com].
Microsoft seems to be OK with the BSD license. The don't seem to be against open source either
considering that the Microsoft Shared source code licence [microsoft.com] is pretty liberal.
Re:MS is not the only one with GPL problems (Score:2)
Microsoft seems to be OK with the BSD license.
Of course they are ok with the BSD license, because their entire TCP/IP stack was initially taken from BSD-licensed source code :)
hahahahh... (Score:2)
1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
Note the "or (c)"; oh no, free of charge! What will those godless zealots think of next, and how will Scrooge McDuck hold onto his billions this week!
patents? (Score:5, Informative)
It's an antimatter version of the GPL, like a GPL from the parallel Star Trek universe where everyone was evil.
Microsoft has gone ballistic. It has begun.
Re:patents? (Score:3, Funny)
It's easy to imagine Evil Linus with a goatee, but what would Evil RMS look like?
I imagine that in this universe Bill Gates is a Luke-Skywalker kind of figure at the head of the rebel Microsoft organization, trying to take down the Orwellianly-named Free Software Foundation.
Re:patents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Patent number 5,265,261
Unless I'm misreading, they appear to have patented the notion of client-server communication over a persistent channel? (at least, as it relates to SMB) Amusingly, they call the client a "consumer".
I think the twist may be that it's zero-copy and headers aren't used. Nothing particularly exciting.
Patent number 5,437,013
This looks like pretty much the same deal. Both are obfuscated to make them look more complex, I think.
Anyway, I don't know what a lawyer would make of these, but they look silly to me, which probably means they're completely valid.
Daniel
They'll keep right on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Samba for windows (Score:5, Interesting)
Clients (Score:2)
Microsoft Client for Windows
Microsoft Client for Netware
Microsoft Client for What Windows Should Be
World Standard Client (CIFS)
SMB? (Score:2)
I have read the patent page and I have read other articles. Some say it's Server Message Block and some (such as the patent page) say it's System Message Block. Which is it? What's the authoratative answer? I realize it's almost pointless but it's just one of those things that when explained improperly could make you appear to be an idiot to the wrong people.
And the good news is (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually good news in a certain way. It is yet stronger proof that Microsoft considers the open source community a very viable and threatening competitor.
Most likely they hoped that if they could squash open-source compatibility with windows networks, they could hurt some of the interoperability that is neccesary during the middle phases of migrating a company away from Microsoft (like the recent Merrill Lynch stuff).
The tides are still very very slowly turning, and barring the government helping them too much (and I do believe SSSCA-type bills are a boon for Microsoft if they pass), they will eventually lose.
Re:And the good news is (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - "The viral nature of the GPL" is a bunch of crap. The counter-argument goes like this: I wrote my own damn code, and gave it to you for free. If you want to use it that's fine, but you have to give it away like I did. If you don't like that idea, then go write your own damn code. It's really that simple.
2 - Communism. Yeah so what if some FSF members support some whacked political theories. It doesn't have much bearing on the GPL. The GPL is not communism, it's more akin to realizing that software is much more like art or music than it is like a watch or an auto part, and the way we go about licensing, copyrighting, and patenting software should reflect this.
3 - Microsoft's "release of OSS code" and their attempt to join the OSS community and nothing but PR stunts. They have no interest in sharing any vital code under any reasonably open license. For that matter, they have a large interest in not letting anyone see their code, and in not letting anyone even know how to interoperate with it.
4 - Yes, some "OSS teams" produce commercial closed-source software, but they are in the minority and it's ok to bash them. For the most part OSS teams tend to go commercial in much nicer ways. Take a look at the Crossover plugin stuff related to the WINE code. They are selling a commercial product, but they're also giving the code back to the community where it belongs.
"Nothing... can take away Microsoft's [IP] rights" (Score:3, Interesting)
It only takes one programmer on the MS campus to fuck up and that could happen. I imagine that they're worried that then people would start taking them to court to gain access to the code.
C'mon - if you heard that MS has some GPLed code in Windows - which would you put your weght behind:
a) They just take the code out
b) They are forced to open their codebase
Yup - though so!
Hardly. (Score:2)
I don't think they're worried about that much at all. It just makes a good excuse to shut out anything GPLed, because it cuts into their sales.
Rate this page (Score:2, Funny)
I had to give them my 2 cents. I voted a 1.
Another competitor / another monopoly abuse (Score:2, Offtopic)
NAS Vendors Effected (Score:5, Interesting)
Many manufacturers of NAS (Network Attached Storage) use GPLed OS that have been modified or reduced to their basic components to NAS appliances. I have seen many instances of Linux NAS devices, BSD NAS devices, and yes, NAS devices bases on Windows 2000 for appliances.
A little background:
A NAS device is an appliance dedicated to providing storage on the IP network. It's basically a stripped standard server with ease-of-use features added, and form-fitted into a smaller box. Extremely easy to set up, extremely easy to use.
Companies that make them:
Quantum Snap! www.quantum.com
Maxtor www.maxtor.com
Network Appliance www.netapp.com
IOMEGA www.iomega.com
Blue Arc www.bluearc.com
and the list goes on and on.
They all provide CIFS and NFS shares, some of the also provide Apple shares, and Novell shares. The point here is that many of them are based on GPLed OS. While their final product may be commercial, this development may restrict their use of CIFS. These products RELY on CIFS. Frankly this may be a ploy by Microsoft to sell more copies of Windows 2000 for Appliances, and take a heavy swipe at the Open Source community.
If NAS vendors can't use CIFS, and the latest CIFS has changed to mess up connectivity, they are dead in two years, as the OS upgrades catch up.
If there is a somebody who could clear that up a bit, that would be great.
I, for one, hope that continued compatibility for the CIFS standard continues in the Samba package. For Linux to lose that functionality, it would kill a lot of possible server implementations.
License to read??? (Score:2)
Note that this is not analogous to the GPL. The GPL is a license that lets you do things with copyrighted software that copyright law prohibits you from doing unless you get a license. But that approach doesn't work for a protocol specification because the copyright is on the specification, not the protocol, and so you generally don't need a license in order to implement the protocol even if the specification is copyrighted. (It may be possible to copyright protocols, but that seems like a long shot for something like CIFS that's mostly open anyway.)
This license gaffe is curiously analogous to Microsoft software. Usually, Microsoft copies other people's software badly. This time, Microsoft copied other people's licenses (the GPL) badly, trying to impose onerous restrictions on people who merely read a document. Microsoft's incompetence manages to reach new lows day after day, and I suppose that is an amazing achievement in itself.
Append the GPL to form a special MS-GPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft will most likely amend their agreement to forbid releasing the software under the MS-GPL code, as well. However I would think it would be more legally difficult to distinguish an MS-GPL from a regular software license.
Rate the page ! (Score:2)
Is there a
Damnit! (Score:3, Funny)
Linus, if you need help installing XP on all your machines, give me a call.
-Spack
Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:4, Interesting)
`(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.
In other words, the DMCA requires that programmers be able to access parts of a computer program "to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs" (i.e. porting a windows program to linux). If that access isn't provided then the programmer can legally circumvent a technological measure that controls access to the essential parts of that program for the purposes of porting.
I say we should rally the EFF and call them on it.
Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:3, Insightful)
Knowing Microsoft, their next step will be to implement a completely new filesystem, encourage (force) everyone to upgrade, and protect it with encryption (if they claim that the encryption is for protection of a user's intellectual property, then perhaps the DMCA would have more teeth in this situation), and/or patents (somewhat akin to what they did with ASF).
Microsoft - boldly leading us back into the dark ages of incompatibility.
Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says that such access isn't provided? The CIFS licence above is for Royalty-free licensing. If you contact Microsoft and can negotiate a reasonable licensing agreement with them, then it certainly is provided. In which case, it's not a violation. Just because it can't be done free doesn't mean that it can't be done.
-Andrew
Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:5, Informative)
1) Download the CIFS documentation from Microsoft at the URL provided, and agree to the terms of the license.
2) Reverse engineer (through packet sniffing, etc) the protocol, never touching/reading any of Microsoft's documentation (eg: figure it out on your own).
The section of the DMCA you cited prevents software makers from limiting a customer from reverse engineering a product for compatibility purposes; Microsoft can claim all day long that you can't reverse engineer their OS (and I'm sure they include packet sniffing in their 'reverse engineer' definition), but the law says you have a right to circumvent any measures they put in place to stop you, and (in parts not quoted by the parent) even PUBLISH your results amongst peers.
Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA does not give you the legal right to violate a patent for interoperability. Finally documentation does not constitute a computer program.
So basically this license is setting out very specific terms as to how they license their patents and some documentation. It does nothing to prevent someone with a copy of windows from reverse engineer it to write another implementation of CIFS. That's an issue for the windows EULA. Which if I'm not mistaken probably already stipulates you may not reverse engineer it anyway.
The DMCA grant you mention only exists to circumvent digital rights management for the purpose of interoperability. And even then it's pretty narrowly construed.
Last but not least. Just because you have a right does not mean you can not give it up contracturaly. For example, generally one has the right to free speach. However, if I sign a NDA and start saying things I agreed I would not I could be sued. The judge wouldn't be very interested in my Free Speech rights.
Re:Microsoft just violated the DMCA! (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing in this spec that Samba has not already
implemented.
This spec is irrelevent to Samba.
As to the "will have to switch to a BSD license in order
to add features to Samba".... words fail me !
If you want new features (such as a recycle bin or the
new NT-ACL code) then just keep doing a CVS update from
samba.org. Next release will be 2.2.4.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Maybe there's a point here... (Score:2)
I also liked the idea posted about separating the CIFS code into a separate library. Then GPL code could link it in.
It's a shame, however, that thinking rationally probably doesn't count when it comes to Microsoft. Knowing Microsoft's history, this probably isn't about these things, but is some devious plot to divide and conquer the various open/free source crowds and to introduce FUD.
Shame it's come to this, isn't it? Kind of like a mate of yours who betrays you over and over and then when they finally may be telling the truth, you just can't come to believe it's possible.
Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, this is a -- if not the -- prime example of what's wrong with the "intellectual property" faction of anti-GPL types. The GPL in no way inhibits intellectual property. It is simply a software license that imposes contractual conditions on the use of software. It is only unusual in that it does not require payment.
Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.
This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.
It's a pity that certain political factions like to lionize Microsoft as bastions of capitalism when Microsoft is itself devoted to strangling the free market at every turn. If Microsoft is as good as they say they are, why are they so afraid of competing in an open and fair market? Why have they adopted such a deeply un-American stance towards the fundamental values of political and economic liberty? Ballmer can spew all he wants about the GPL being communist, but as near as I can tell, it is Microsoft that is seeking to create a command economy.
Why waste any more time on CIFS anyway? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the *Patent* that is the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that MS is claiming a patent on the underlying technology. They are offering a royalty-free license to non-GPL software. This is hard for GPL software to get around.
Does anyone understand what is being patented? Does it look like a valid patent -- I never got the feeling that this technology was particularly innovative.
How to get around this nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Microsoft license doesn't prohibit BSD-like licenses (MS loves swiping BSD code). So, developer A uses the specs to implement a bare-bones BSD version, and releases that code only to developer B. Developer B then makes a derivative work of that, fleshing out the details, making it much more useful, etc, and releases that version under the GPL. (Nothing in the BSD prevents this.)
Now, of course, anyone is free to use the original BSD'd code in a non-GPL manner -- if they can figure out which code that is! Since the original BSD version was never publicly released, they have no way of doing that, so they have to use the GPLd version.
(Usual IANAL disclaimer applies, though.)
FSF should sue for slander (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone Remember Novell? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft quickly eroded Novell's network operating system market share, eventually becoming the dominant player in office network servers. Novell Netware installations now seem a rarity.
Microsoft, the dominant player, is now threatened by people creating compatible implementations of its own services. This turn of events, though not surprising, somehow seems ironic.
A Slogan: Microsoft Wants to Steal Our Work! (Score:3)
This has got to be... (Score:4, Insightful)
From Advogato [advogato.net]:
It's simply time to acknowledge the reality of the situation, and go our own way.
F*ck Micro$oft; f*ck interoperability with Micro$oft; let Micro$oft and its ilk rot in hell, stewed in their own juices, which they most certainly will.
Two worlds, one the world of darkness, and one the world of light.
Guess which one is Micro$oft?
Which one will you join?
t_t_b
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
It does maybe also explain the US governments position and desire to look the other way and not punish microsoft. Perhaps they think that a combination of draconian patent lobbying world wide combined with Microsoft co-operation will let them suck all the money out of foreign developing nations by enforcing windows (plus NSAKEY and the like) on any that threaten to become the new economic powers.
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems pretty straightforward: if you want to read/access the document you must be agree to the terms. Samba reverse engineered its implementation, and so, therefore, does not need to follow this license or view the documment.
Not in patent law. Microsoft has patented methods used to authenticate users in their networked file system. Microsoft can deny ANYONE the right to use this authentication mechanism using any terms they like. Reverse engineering is fine for circumventing methods decsribed in copyrighted works; it is useless against patent protection.
I didn't read fully the gist of what Microsoft did, but it certainly seems like they just made it illegal to use a GPLd SAMBA that uses their patented authentication, and forced anyone else to get a license from them to use the SMB protocol.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what Microsoft tries to achieve: get developers to read the text, then wait until a patch from one of these developers appears in the samba sources.
Wait a bit, then sue. The difficult part is proving that the patch author has read the CIFS docs, but Microsoft has enough money to find an expert that proves that a certain information was not found through reverse engineering.
The Samba team must document every reverse engeneering step.
Re:So? (Score:3, Informative)
No, what this says (as a practical matter) is that you are not licensed to implement the "inventions" disclosed in the listed patents ("Necessary Claims") under the GPL or related licenses. I don't see the problem, if the patents are valid (which is questionable) - a patent by design gives the holder the right to exclude others from implementing the technology it discloses. Overall, MS is more or less licensing the patents freely to the extent that one might wish to develop a full non-Windows implementation of the spec described in the Technical Reference so long as the implementation does not fall under a so-called "IPR" license (and so long as you agree to cross-license back to MS any patents you hold that a MS CIFS implementation would infringe).
MS apparently thinks that you cannot implement the described spec without infringing the patents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft have indicated in at least one public forum that this is the case. The legalisms are there for the sole purpose of protecting their patent rights.
The courts have of late become inclined to invalidate patent licenses under an emerging doctrine similar to that of copyright abuse. Essentially if you encourage people to use a technology that you have filed patent claims on in certain ways the courts can decide to revoke the patent. This was done for a patent that covered EISA bus which covered technology that had been proposed to the standards committee without disclosure of the IP claims.
The issue on GPL is hardly suprising and in no way prevents anyone's ability to develop open source. All it does is to prevent the open source authors from placing certain restrictions on the re-use of that software that Microsoft objects to. The Samba people can still distribute code for free, they can distribute the source for free. What they cannot do is to place restrictions on their code that prevent others from modifying the code as they might want to.
GPL is an exercise in control-freakery, Microsoft don't want to be controlled by RMS. The spat is somewhat amusing but has no real consequences.
Let us imagine that someone does write an implementation and distributes it with a BSD license and someone else takes the code modifies it and sells the result. Just how exactly is that outcome meant to be baaaaaad? The original freeware version is still out there.
No kidding. (Score:2)
Lendrick
Re:No kidding. (Score:2)
Even reading the licence doesn't mean you accept it. Usually you have to accept the license, because nothing else gives you right to use or copy the software. But here, I can accept the license and use the software and you can probe by computer and reverse engineer it. You don't need to accept the license, because you don't need any rights which you otherwise wouldn't have.
Disclaimer: I'm ANAL and this is my illegal advice.
Re:No kidding. (Score:5, Informative)
Usually you have to accept the license, because nothing else gives you right to use or copy the software.
Umm, nothing except USC 17, Chapter 1, Section 117 [cornell.edu]
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:2)
>the government was bought in this case. It
>wasn't. From the tone of your article though it
>doesn't sound like you are interested in the
>legal reasons that the DOJ settled
the legal reason to settle? for christs sakes, they've been CONVICTED of leveraging a monopoly illegally.
convicted. guilty.
do you give a convicted murderer probation? i dont think so.
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure you can. The harm to consumers is in directly denying them their choice. Consumers overwhelmingly chose netscape until MS made it a violation of their OEM license agreement to preinstall netscape. Microsoft's actions harmed consumers by denying them their choice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:3, Informative)
You're talking about downloads. Mjh is talking about preinstallation on computers with Windows. I remember this -- at one point Dell and Compaq would give you a system with Netscape's icon right on it, then suddenly they weren't offering that anymore, and IE came by default. I still have a 100mhz laptop from Compaq with Win95 on it, and it still has the Netscape that came preinstalled with it. Mjh is right. Microsoft blocked such preinstalls, and got in trouble in court for such activity.
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:3, Insightful)
That may be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that microsoft caused consumers harm by precluding them from having a preinstall of Netscape, when as you say, it was superier to IE.
All I'm trying to do is answer the question: Did MS's actions cause consumers harm. I think the answer is yes. danhaskett disagrees, and thinks that it's impossible to prove harm because now the environment is completely different. And he's right that the environment now is different, but I think that's irrelevant.
I think it's irrelevant because it doesn't matter what the environment is like now. A harmful act was committed. Think of it this way. It's not a acceptable excuse for Bin Laden to say that he should avoid punishment because the product of his actions ended up with the US becoming more united and less concerned about petty bickering. That may very well be a good thing that came about from his harmful act, but that doesn't enable him to avoid the consequences of that act.
IMHO, the same thing should be true with MS.
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:2, Insightful)
2) They were. What legal reasons do YOU have for the DOJ settling? AFAIK DOJ proved MS guilty, and in the penalty phase, they said "We can't prove MS guilty, so we will take the coward's way out"
3) $40 billion in the bank buys you lots of senators, and congressmen, and judges, etc,etc.
4) MS is in the middle of a mud-flinging campain right now. They'll (try to) make it illegal within 3 years. They like BSD because they can steal from it, without contributing. (And that's the point, and we like it that way!)
5) Good point.
6) True.
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:3)
That is, they like it as long as they can be parasites.
Re:Gonna be an interesting ride... (Score:3, Insightful)
The true value of the GPL is that it keeps companies and people honest. Whenever a company begins abusing its position or customers the GPL ensures that alternative products can be safely created independent of market share or monopoly power. A company like Microsoft might be able to stomp all over other companies and pre-emptively purchase or squash startups that threaten its position. It can't do that to a loose collection of hackers (!crackers) and hobbyists that are sick of taking its crap. Microsoft hates the GPL because it is a direct and serious threat to Microsoft and only Microsoft. It is not because of any supposed threat it poses to the software industry as a whole. Where the software industry is concerned, the only thing Microsoft cares about is controlling and dominating it. To hear the evil empire crying foul play is about like the KKK accusing someone of racism.
As far as I'm concerned, if Microsoft hates something then it must be a good thing. The more they scream and the louder the volume, the more wonderful the subject of their complaint must be. If the devils says he doesn't like something, you can bet your sweet ass it must be touched by the divine.
Lee
Re:You're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
apart from the entirely different argument about whether *BSD or linux is better, the biggest threat to Microsoft on servers is linux. If something is a big enough competitor, MS does not care what license it uses. MS only cares that every machine running a competing OS is not running Windows (or exclusively Windows).
In Microsoft's leaked emails [opensource.org] they don't talk about letting BSD slide because of the license. they don't mention the GPL as the reason that linux must be outsold. They only mention that they want to work especially hard to win those accounts.
people mentioning Apple's OSX as a threat miss the point. though Darwin is open source, OSX is not. If it were, i'd be running it on my PC architecture. Microsoft lets Apple slide because they have been confined to a niche market (though personally, i wouldn't be surprised if OSX reverses that trend.) as it stands, OSX only runs on proprietary Apple hardware.
The point is that MS focuses its efforts on its largest immediate threats. Not threats to licensing or IP, but threats to market share. As soon as BSD gets a big enough install base, MS will go after BSD.
Also there's the idea that GPL does not allow the MS tried and true formula, embrace, extend, extinguish. MS likes BSD because it can do anything it likes with the code. They'll toss code out there if it allows people to develop for their own proprietary platform. It is not contributed because MS thinks that it would like to help make BSD a better OS.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft's final goal is something other than total market domination in every area related to technology is fooling themselves.
Re:Thank you Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the samba team uses no documents from Microsoft, they can make samba interact with Microsoft file systems.
Compaq did this with the PC Bios, it is well established practice.
The DMCA might make reverse engineering illegal, though, but I think when push comes to shove on this the Supreme Court should help reverse engineering make the DMCA illegal.
Re:Ugh! (Score:3, Funny)
Sure it is. It's when you break the big prong off of the 3-prong plug, and plug the computer in anyway. The computer is then "ungrounded".
Alternatively, it's when you do something to redeem yourself in the eyes of your parents when you had previously been in trouble for mischief. When the sentence is lifted, you have been "ungrounded".
Finally, it's what happened a few days after September 11 when the planes started flying again, as the FAA had stopped all flights while security measures were enhanced. The first plane to lift off that day became "ungrounded".
Re:I may have found a bug in it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Invalid License (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but this isn't aimed at everyone. This license is aimed squarely at the Samba team. MS knows exactly where they are and likely have lawyers waiting in the wings for Samba to make the wrong move with this. The Samba team has three choices right now:
1. Continue to reverse-engineer CIFS and releasing Samba under the GPL. In which case they violate the DMCA, which states that reverse-engineering is legal as long as the interoperability info is not readily available.
2. Read the Doc and implement the spec, but release under GPL anyway. This would save the Samba Team for the DMCA problems of #1, but would expose them to a lawsuit based on the violation of a licensing agreement (however, ridiculous its terms are).
3. Switch the Samba license to a BSD-style license. This may not be possible, because many people have contributed code to the project over the years. In other words, the Samba team may not have the legal right to change the license.
So, from what I've been able to figure, the Samba Team is ROYALLY screwed right now. No matter which way they turn, they will be doing something wrong.
Microsoft is kicking back having a really big laugh right now.
Re:Invalid License (Score:5, Informative)
This spec is a *subset* of what Samba already implements.
The SNIA CIFS spec (which we helped to create) already
documents far more than is in this spec. (Not that I've
read it this spec, obviously, but I've spoken to people
who have read both).
This spec. is an irrelevence. Try implementing it to
the letter and see how many Microsoft clients actually
*work* against you. (Hint - none
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:This is great! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BSD license (Score:4, Insightful)
work on any BSD licensed code any more for example.
Look at the reasons that Wine changed from BSD style
licensing to LGPL for a clue as to why that might be....
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.