Microsoft And The GPL/LGPL 618
AnimeFreak writes "In this CNET news article, it talks about how Microsoft's new license that will allow competing companies to read-over software code for their products does not allow software covered under the GPL/LGPL licensing agreement (such as Linux, SAMBA, and Mozilla)."
So competing means???? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So competing means???? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, how can MS compete with GPL? I see they're trying to look _good_ by allowing some source to leak out to freeBSD. Still, with their standards, how can they prevent/make sure that somebody doesn't share the standards with somebody in the samba group? Still, isn't decryption/decoding of standards compliance ommitted in the DMCA? I thought the Sony v Colecio setteled that (I knew it's sony versus some other vid game company, as the other company won).
Oh well, MS is outliving their usefulness with their ever constricting contracts and costs. I've even shown Linux to friends who never have had a computer. They prefer KDE over windows. They realise setting up is a chore, but learning a bit is cheaper than resorting to a Evercrack(-like) software. Just fork over 200 bucks and we'll give you a patch^H^H^H^H^Hupgrade!
I still use Windows(2k), But I'm trying to find the best way to port over to linux, as the major tool I need is an avi video editor(VirtualDUB in linux would be wonderul, but I have very little skills in that area). I game a bit, But I OWN the metal box Quake3. I also have UT, RtCW, and other fun linux games. No probs there....
Sega v. Accolade (Score:4, Informative)
Still, isn't decryption/decoding of standards compliance ommitted in the DMCA?
Yes, 17 USC 1201 permits circumvention aimed strictly at interoperability, but many judges have flatly ignored that provision.
I thought the Sony v Colecio settled that (I knew it's sony versus some other vid game company, as the other company won).
The issue in Sega v. Accolade was the Trademark Security System in the Sega Genesis console, which gave the program on the cartridge a short time to call a BIOS routine that displayed "Licensed by Sega", or the BIOS would halt the program. The judge ruled that copying Sega's code to do this was fair use (read the decision [eff.org] to see why). The Sega Dreamcast, Nintendo Game Boy and Game Boy Advance platforms use nearly the same system (except it's a piece of data in the header instead of a piece of code that must be called within time constraints), making it perfectly lawful for homebrew developers [gbadev.org] to put the logo data in the header as long as they don't cause trademark confusion (which can be avoided with a simple "NOT LICENSED BY $CONSOLE_MAKER" in the initial screen display).
The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA don't replace Sega v. Accolade not only because of the interoperability exemption but also because the systems in the Genesis, DC, Game Boy, and GBA platforms don't control access to a work copyrighted by the console maker, and only (representatives of) the copyright owner can sue under 17 USC 1201.
Re:So competing means???? (Score:3, Funny)
That's typical bourgeois attitude. Case in point: in the late 1700's, a brewer named Molson moved to Canada, where 99.99% of the french population, being from Normandy, made their own applejack cider (grapes dont's grow there). Rather than corner the cider market, the incompetent Molson had the governor pass a law prohibiting the people from making their own cider.
Voilà! Instant market for it's horsepiss beer!
That's typical of the the way anglo-saxons do business: shove their inferior crap down other's throats. And then, they wonder why planes crash into buildings...
Re:So competing means???? (Score:3, Informative)
There are at least 20 wineries within one hour's drive of my house, and at least 30 vinyards, and Okanagan wine has been cleaning up with gold medals at the world tasting events for a good five years or more. We grow grapes here, and damn fine grapes at that.
Ontario also has a thriving winery industry, though it's not nearly so good as BC's.
Re:So competing means???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: Thou shalt allow us to steal.
You know, you're right... (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL/LGPL basically says you can't change the license on the code to anything non-GPL/LGPL.
The MS license says you can't ever change the license to GPL/LGPL - or, in other words, MS must always have the option to copy/buy/(steal?) the code back.
Really, MS just took the GPL and turned it around on itself. If the ideas behind the GPL are valid, then the ideas behind this license are valid. Clever trick... you ALMOST have to admire their lawyers.
MS has faith that open source can't survive without MS code. Open source has faith that they can survive without MS code. I wonder who's right...
Re:You know, you're right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. This is not about sharing source, this is about disclosing standards by a lawbreaking monopolist.
A judge said you are bad you must be broken up. M$ paid for a new legislature and president, then got rid of the judge.
Lesson: You must play by the rules unless you have enough money. Now I must get back to work to pay for a hooker (er ex-wife).
Didn't we do this one already? (Score:2)
Just like... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/05/145
I thought we had hashed this one out already
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what "freedom" is all about. You get to choose how your code can be used. MS has decided, now it's up to us to honor that decision.
Otherwise, you have no right to expect anyone to respect licences like the GPL.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, what Perens *is* saying is that if Microsoft patents certain features or qualities of its implementation, then if SAMBA wants to make an interoperable product, they have to pay royalties to Microsoft in order to be able to use the *patented* (not copyrighted) technologies. And it's this type of IP patent abuse that has got Perens and the entire computing world (except those with legal monopolies gained from unjust patents) scared $hitless.
Re:So? (Score:2, Funny)
Am I alright if that read "scared <a variable named hitless>"?
I was scratching for full 10 seconds before I realized '$'=='s'
Re:So? (Score:2)
It pisses of the astro turfers at slashdot.
It pisses off trolls.
I $ay go for it!.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what "freedom" is all about. You get to choose how your code can be used. MS has decided, now it's up to us to honor that decision.
Otherwise, you have no right to expect anyone to respect licences like the GPL.
Normally, you would be right, but Microsoft has been found guilty of illegaly abusing a monopoly. This trial is in the penalty phase, not the "did they do it or not" phase; Microsoft is being punished.
The very heart of "punishment" means that Microsoft is going to have to do things that they do not want to. The fact that this is an anti-trust trial means that they are going to have to do things that hurt themselves and help their competition. GPL software represents some of their strongest competition, so a "punishment" that does not help GPL developers is not a punishment at all. Remember, they have been abusing their competitors and their customers.
In the past, when Microsoft did whatever they damn well pleased, they broke the law. They cannot continue to do whatever they damn well please to correct this.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Not to sound too harsh, but really, cry me a river. Thanks to the rather strict requirements of the GPL, it's really not too hard to come up with something, even in good faith, that doesn't play with the GPL. Witness the QPL or old BSD licenses.
Now of course breaking compatability w/ the LGPL is an entirely different story. Since I glanced through the MS license, I will go ahead and stupidly ask (since Mr. Perens didn't quite explain in his article): exactly how does said license not allow one to link a module created using the MS license with other modules created under the LGPL? I can't find anything that would kill this. Even section 3.3 doesn't seem to apply since LGPL modules don't place restrictions on other modules, and thus don't cause $(MS_MODULE) to come under $(IPR_IMPAIRING_LICENSE). Hell, where is Mr. Perens getting the statement "The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the General Public License, commonly known as the GPL" from? I don't see any mention of (L)GPL in the document.
Does this whole furor stem from the fact that the license covers the documentation?
Lastly, of course, is this the part where I say how I'm writing this from a Linux box and work with GPL software, or should I just go hide behind some asbestos? Obviously I misled myself *somewhere*..
Clarification (was: Re:So?) (Score:2)
Ok, STILL.. it wouldn't be compatable w/the GPL anyway. And since "Company Implementation" refers specifically to "portions of software that implement CIFS.." (section 1.2), and not the software itself, I still don't see why it would be a problem to link against LGPL modules.
Listen up yo (Score:3, Funny)
That's some bull$hit straight up. Tell me this. If GPL be such strong competition and all that, why do they need some judge to save they a$$? Ya'll OSS fools need to get ovah the fact that if yo game was strong, you wouldn't need to wait for some court to MAKE Micro$oft cut you some slack. Don't nobody respect no whiny a$$ busta who always crying about how somebody else took they whatevah.
Fact is, none a ya'll OSS software be ready fo prime time. And when it is, like Apache which been tearin up $hit fo a while now, M$ cain't fsck wit it. So all ya'll need to do is quit stressin' about M$ and hone ya'll skills. When ya'll are better than M$ ya'll know it cause you won't need no judges or no punk DOJ bustas.
You forget one thing (Score:2)
So no they cant write it however they damn well please.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Max
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's their code, they can licence it however they damn well please.
A good and valid point.
I find it ironic, though, in all of MS crying and hand-wringing about how the GPL is so restrictive, destructive of intellectual property, anti-American, etc. that they have come out with a license that is phrased with particular vengeance against the share-and-share-alike GPL.
Despite his rabid single-minded adherence to the principles in which he believes, you don't see RMS adding clauses to the GPL prohibiting you from using such software together with proprietary software, such as MS operating systems, etc. He encourages maximum use of free software, but he does not distribute his software with the kinds of legal shackles that MS is doing.
So let the free market decide which kind of system they like better.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Bring this up in anti-trust case (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't this confusing two things? (Score:2)
- adam
What is this (Score:2)
Brain Control? (Score:5, Insightful)
So in short they are denying you to use information. And of course that would just mean, that every Open Source development in projects that are related to what MS is "disclosing" have to stop immediately, otherwise MS could claim that the developers violated their license. And the question is if Open Source then has to prove if they are innocent or if MS has to prove that they are guilty. Anyway, legal affairs cost much more than many Open Source developers can afford.
So this is just another form of censorship. But its much worse. Microsoft is "publishing" something and in the same moment trying to disallow you to use that knowledge which is published. A thing that is really serious because the human brain doesn't have an infrastructure that tags information as "not usuable for Open Source" and so on. Or can you imagine a school that learns you how to add 1+1 and then tells you: You are not allowed to use this knowledge. And keep that in mind!
As a developer I don't want to bother if the knowledge that is stored in my brain is free or not! For me it is free and nobody, especially not Microsoft has the right to control what I'm doing with my brain!
So for an Open Source developer this sort of license agreement simply says: Read the information and forget it completely. And so there is no need to waste time with reading at all.
So, basically this license can be used by Microsoft to protect even things that are not able to get a patent for.
If I go on thinking about this a bit more, then I think that Orwell was a very big optimist when he wrote "1984".
Re:Brain Control? (Score:2)
And they have the gall to call the GPL 'Viral'...
Sickening.
Jim
Re:Brain Control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer: IANAL
Not really. I don't believe there are no legal grounds, historical or otherwise, for licensing text materials with provisions on what you can or cannot do with the knowledge within. If I buy a copy of a M$ technical reference from my local bookstore, M$ has no right to prevent me from doing anything other than directly copying it. I can write my own technical reference based on my interpretation, release it with nothing more than a standard copyright, and they can't do a damn thing about it. (Preventing me from doing so would be a clear-cut first-amendment violation). The same applies to software itself assuming that code is considered free speech. Software would be an interpretation of the technical reference as well. If software is (illogically) not deemed free speech, then there may still be need for an in-between third-party documentation before developers can use it to develop software.
Either way, this is only about software patents. Without them, M$ is powerless to enforce any such license.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:2)
The First Amendment only applies when the GOVERNMENT is attempting to prevent you from doing what you stated above. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a private company who does not fall under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment. Now if you were to indirectly copy material (running it through your own words and interpretations), you could be accused of plagiarism.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:2)
Further, NO ONE is allowed to supress the free speech rights of another person.
Where did this "the Constitution only applies to Congress" routine get started? It applies to EVERYONE, not just Congress.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:3)
Connect the dots (Score:3, Insightful)
Step three, vigorously prosecute anyone developing competing products that do not let you tax the proceeds.
The potential synergies of these power grabs are even more scarey than the grabs themselves.
Xix.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:2)
I've seen dozens of tiny companies do exactly the same thing.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've heard of a non-disclosure agreement, right?
A non-compete clause?
What you do with your brain is terribly contractable.
Re:Brain Control? (Score:2, Informative)
The BSD license does not require this. Unlike the GPL license, the BSD license does not require the source code to be available for a piece of software licensed under it.
- Preston
Re:Brain Control? (Score:5, Informative)
Note that if either (a), (b), OR (c) is true, then the license is an "IPR impairing license". Also, it is possible to sublicense some software in a way that would make it fall under the definition of an "IPR impairing license". In the main passage of the license text, it says:
So something like public domain software, which can be sublicensed as BSD, GPL etc. is out as well.Re:Brain Control? (Score:2)
Not all OSS develepers are as lucky as those who program OSS software as a day job you know...
The picture I get (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The picture I get (Score:2)
The GPL only seeks to prevent you from being a mooch, leeching off of GPL crowd. This new perversion from Microsoft seeks to make any competitor a Microsoft employee.
Let's stick to the facts and prepare our strategy (Score:2, Informative)
Let's take a look at the patents that Microsoft has filed that they are attempting to use to keep Samba down. Keep in mind that these may not be available on freebie patent search sites, as they have not been formally approved yet (a process that often takes 1-2 years). In the meantime, you can find them on Lexus-Nexis and other similar professional service networks.
- U.S. Patent T7086923: Authentication of an Untrusted Third Party
over a Packet Switched Network to control access to Network resources. As
the title may indicate, this is a very general patent; based on my Linux
experiences, the original BSD telnet daemon constitutes prior art. No
problem here.
- U.S. Patent T7065653: Connection-based random access file transport
mechanism with Authentication and Reliability. Sorry, but Apache beat them
to the punch several years ago. No go. Yes, http supports random access.
- U.S. Patent T7689363: Domain identification and logon based on
broadcast network packets. This is a little tougher, but BOOTP was around
before Microsoft was even formed. Check the dates on your RFCs as an
exercise, and tell me just how quickly this one will get thrown out of
court.
Yes, Microsoft has big, bad lawyers - but technically they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Bring RMS, ESR, and their millions of dollars into the picture, and Microsoft is going to have some serious problems enforcing their farce.~wally
Re:Let's stick to the facts and prepare our strate (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the long drawn out trials, threats and general FUD that can go on for years (as MS has just proved), all the while effectively making it impossible for the coders to code.
tell me, do you have the money and resources to prove them wrong in a court of law?
regardless, are you supremely confident enough in your claims to start coding tomorrow? would you get nervous when you get your daily cease and desist letter, knowing you don't have the legal power to stand up to them? what if they go ahead and arrest you? sure, you could get released b/c they have no real legal claim, but is it really worth it? ask Sklarikov(sp?) if he would rather have the software or the jail time.
the real issues, unfortunately, have nothing to do with 'reality' and MS knows this just as well as us.
"The Management" (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in a state agency (hence the AC), and the prevailing "unwritten" policy that has been tossed my direction is that we will use Micro$oft platform software for systems that we have a shortage of competent workers to use as resources (ie one, me) due to these principles:
So.. we continue to use M$ software in a highly vulnerable part of our enterprise (web).
What's the point?
The point is that members of the technical community (read: tech workers, not most middle-managers) are already convinced of the issues of interoperability, standards, and the monopoly status of Micro$oft. The hurdle lies in convincing "The Management" that the only way to break this monopoly and to curb these business practices is to take your business elsewhere.
From my perspective, most of those in middle management feel that Micro$oft will do what is "right", and do what is "best" for the tech sector, and that having a large corporation there to take care of our interoperability worries, and our standards issues, and our implementation problems is a nice comfy thing to have. It gives them a sort of comfort zone in which to work in.
I think I started rambling.. I better move to my weblog now so I don't get modded too heavily.
Just to Nitpick (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just to Nitpick (Score:2)
Mozilla is licenced under the Netscape Public Licence [mozilla.org], not the GPL.
Actually, different bits of Mozilla are licensed under a bit of a mess of different licenses. Efforts are underway [mozilla.org] to get everything unified under an NPL/GPL/LGPL "triple license", so you'll be able to use the code as long as you abide by one of those licenses. This would, of course, fall foul of Microsoft's new license.
Re:Just to Nitpick^2 (Score:2, Informative)
As a nitpick to your nitpick, the efforts that are underway are actually primarily to convert to a MPL/GPL/LGPL triple license. The Relicensing FAQ you point to actually addresses the NPL/MPL tangle in relicensing [mozilla.org].
More information on the special rights and differences between the MPL and NPL are available in the MPL/NPL FAQ [mozilla.org].
Currently, there are only a few bits left to be relicensed: Have You Seen These Hackers? [mozilla.org]
Two wrongs do not make a right! (Score:3, Informative)
The NPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence is only for stuff originally under NPL.
The most succinct explanation of what's acceptable and where is under "Acceptable Licenses" near the bottom of the licence policy page [mozilla.org].
Microsoft took out the license agreements.. (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ knows, that they can use licenses to take control back from gpl'ed software. And with the DMCA there is no such thing as "Interoperability" programming. You don't have the source, your breaking US law.
And remember kiddies, the DoJ arrests people from other countries.
Re:Microsoft took out the license agreements.. (Score:2, Informative)
It's always so sad to see halfway intelligent posts look so stupid because they don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" or "their", "they're", and "there".
Get a highschool literacy, please.
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT, I'm less "up in arms over MS license shenanigans" than I am pleasantly enjoying looking at the big picture here. As of late there most of MS moves have been very defensive, there's not a lot of neat and interesting things MS has been bringing to the table as of late, besides
* The X-box has been respectable at best. Yes, MS has a reputation of getting things right the third time round, but with the X-box they have to pay $$$ for each and every box they sell. Its production has a much more profound effect on their bottom line than producing strictly software. Plus, you can't just release a new version every 9-12 months until its usable.
* Windows on big iron seems to be niche at best. Compaq, Dell, et al have all reduced or dropped support altogether.
* This is my own opinion, but someone's smoking crack if they think the web tablet is going to blow up huge (at least in the form MS has been showing). This isn't a MS bash, I'd say the same thing if some company was using Linux/BSD and making the same claim. The tablet has always seemed to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist (in the mass market).
*
In fact, if MS can't hit a home run here in the next 24 months you're going to see them use their IP more and more. Expect them to start hitting people hard and heavy to bolster their bottom line. The problem with this is, of course, its a short term solution. The marketplace will find a way to eventually circumnavigate barriers thrown in its way.
Its been said before, but MS is looking more and more like the Wangs of the past. They're not going to disappear overnight (if at all), and they've got a lot of inertia on thier side, but unless they come up will a large scale winner, the 800lb gorilla is going on a crash diet.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
I received an e-mail recently from a training company that offered a free X-Box to anyone who would sign up for one of their courses. The courses ran the gamut from typical WinMonkey stuff to Netware to Linux.
I thought it was mildly weird.
Other Counties (Score:2, Interesting)
It would greatly hinder development, but what if the protocol work was done overseas? Software is regulated in different ways in different locations.
Just a thought
This is about *Software Patents* (Score:5, Interesting)
3.2 Patent License. Subject to Sections 3.3 - 3.7, Microsoft
hereby grants Company a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, personal,
transferable, non-sublicensable, license under its Necessary Claims to (1)
make, use, import, and (2) offer to sell, sell and distribute, directly or
indirectly, to End Users, Company Implementations that fully comply with the
Technical Reference. The above license is limited to implementing the CIFS
communication protocol itself, and does not include any express or implied
licenses or other rights to any underlying technology (operating system
technology, local file system technology, etc.) that may be used to make a
complete file server or other CIFS compatible device.
Reciprocal Patent License. To the extent Company owns,
controls or can sublicense without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third
party, any patents that are required for Microsoft or its licensees to
implement CIFS as set forth in the Technical Reference and distribute such
implementations, Microsoft and its licensees are hereby granted a license to
such patents solely for the purpose of implementing CIFS as set forth in the
Technical Reference and distributing such implementations.
If I understand this correctly, Microsoft is claiming patent rights (5,265,261
and 5,437,013) on technology related to implementing CIFS. Basically they're saying "everybody can use our patents royalty-free as long as it's not part of (L)GPL'ed software." Essentially this is a patent license, not a software or documentation license. The "technical reference" is just along for the ride--also free under the same terms. I predicted this about 2 years ago--that Microsoft would turn to software patents after realizing that GPL software was undefeatable by any other means. This is their first attempt.
It seems there are 3 options:
1.) Develop CIFS software outside the US, ignore the patent for use within the US.
2.) Develop a CIFS module for Samba under the BSD license (license compatibility?)
3.) Develop CIFS software at will and ignore M$ altogether.
All three cases probably require some degree of civil disobedience for US citizens--in the form of not honoring software patents. I say go for it. This could become the first time M$ ever legally fought individuals, and believe me--it could raise such a stink in public opinion that it destroys them completely.
Re:This is about *Software Patents* (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what lawyers think of this.
We're currently getting a legal opinion on this and will post a more complete statement once we've done so.
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:This is about *Software Patents* (Score:2)
Sure, I'm down for civil disobedience -- but then again, I'm not a big company. Legitimate businesses are much less likely to use software created with even a little civil disobedience.
Allow BSD, but not GPL, how? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or probably better, all the MS interoperation code could be put in a BSD library (since there'd be nothing innovative in that part, MS won't even bother) and then link all kinds of GPL programs to that library. Does that make sense?
Re:Allow BSD, but not GPL, how? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not so much that BSD-licensed code can be relicensed (GPL code can be relicensed as well, by the author or with the author's consent). It's more about how the GPL forces the code to be released.
There are really two ways to look at the GPL. The first is from the perspective of a programmer writing GPLed software. He licenses under the GPL because he wants to make sure his code is always available (alternatively, he worships RMS, or doesn't really know what the GPL is but has heard it used as a buzzword, or is trying to keep companies from profiting from his work, whatever). This is fine. Anybody who wants to use that code has to abide by the GPL or get a special license from the author.
The second way is what this is all about. Somebody writing a GPL application links to a non-GPL library. Now, it's not very clear on what the licensing situation should be at that point. The obvious solution is "don't do that", but there are plenty of ignorant people out there so we can't rely on that answer. Now, the way Microsoft (and most other GPL-unfriendly companies) interpret this situation is that the viral nature of the GPL goes both ways -- if you link to a GPL library, you're now forced to GPL your app, and if you link a non-GPL library to your GPLed app, that library must now be GPLed. This is exactly what Microsoft is trying to prevent. Remember, the GPL has not been tried in court yet (I don't remember exactly what happened with the recent MySQL case, but I seem to recall it was settled out of court. Anybody want to clear this up?), and so the lawyers are interpreting it pretty broadly to be safe.
This is not Microsoft being malicious about the GPL. It's Microsoft following the CYA (Cover Your Ass) policy with their own intellectual property.
Re:Allow BSD, but not GPL, how? (Score:2)
They are being malicious. Remember that they're not releasing source code, they're release specs, information. What "intellectual property" could they "lose". It's like telling you "the header to my proprietary format starts with an '%', now you're not allowed to write a GPL program that uses that precious information".
Re:Allow BSD, but not GPL, how? (Score:4, Informative)
3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions.
Distributing under a BSD or X11 license would necessarily "subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License." if said implementation were relicensed under the GPL.
Can you spell Prior Restraint? (Score:4, Interesting)
This shit is legal?
If it is, why not just ruin their market? A client which on installation calls a 3rd party server anonymously, to indicate a sale. The dealer donates all the money to the dolphins or maybe the FSF. No money is collected, he just donates on behalf of all the users.
Scenario two: The software is only sold in 1000,000-packs, price is 1 cent. What constitutes a sale? What constitutes prior restraint on business? Microsoft does not make money directly from this license it would seem. Is it possible for them legally to force a licensee to take a profit?
This could sprout a new anti-anti-GPL: Just like BSD but the FSF or somebody else puts up 1 cent for enough copies to cover the world population. We can have a $10 fund to cover any number of M$ products which use this until the sun explodes. Perhaps we should use a dead currency that will give us better compression..
new status quo worse for open source (Score:4, Interesting)
it is now far worse for the open source developer
than before the trial!
Now there is a specific exclusion for a specific competitor. Would the contract be legal if it named a company instead of the GPL?
They don't like GPL? Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They don't like GPL? Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
Not competing on quality (Score:5, Insightful)
So many times, I hear people insisting that M$ could only have become so powerful by being the best. This seems to derive from a profound conviction that market forces can only ever do The Right Thing, so anything that succeeds in the market is by definition a superior product. I think that market forces make this happen most of the time, but like anything else conceived and practiced by human beings, markets are flawed, in that they sometimes allow products to succeed by shenanigans rather than by quality. And M$ is living proof of it.
Here's M$, reacting to the open source phenomenon, which may truly be the biggest threat they face today. Especially the GPL fosters the existence of software that they couldn't at least copy for their own purposes, unless they open their source code as well. So what do they do? Create even better products that beat out GPL'd software on the market? NOOOOOOOO!!! Instead they create a license designed to make the competitor incompatible, by legal fiat. Not that any consumer of software derives any benefit from the intracacies of software licenses, and not that there's any innovation in legally forbidding interoperation.
What will it take before M$ apologists finally get it?
Re:Not competing on quality (Score:5, Insightful)
Just as an aside to your comment, (which I whole heartedly agree), if I ever get busted for something, I want to be treated like M$: I want to be able to meet with the prosecutor and tell them what punishment I'd like.
Now that everyone is freaking over the license, can I ask a really stupid question? Can't we tackle this from the other way around? For instance, write a client for Windows to use Unix, instead of writing a Unix program to work with Windows built in clients? Or am I being really stupid?
So does Kollar-Kotelly know about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect usage of the english language? (Score:2)
Unless I missed that day of class?
why not just? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case distribution isn't 'free' since there is a real cost involved, even if that cost is delayed. Companies use the idea of 'delayed costs' all the time in accounting; why can't common citizens do the same?
Better yet, have one person buy the program and then relicense it under the actual GPL. You can do the same with the exempted BSD license and I doubt MS could do a damned thing about it.
(Well, actually, I don't doubt that. They've obviously bought Bush and through him the DOJ, so they can probably do just about any damned thing they like, with Federal marshals to back them.)
Max
Why not an MIT/BSD license? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not a lawyer. That having been said, the clause at issue seems to be the following:
It occurs to me that there are two well-known open source licenses that satisfy this requirement: the BSD license and the MIT license. They both basically give carte blanche to use the licensed software in any way one pleases, and contain none of the so-called "Intellectual Property Rights Impairing" provisions..
So ... can we re-license these projects under a BSD license? Or is there something I'm missing about the agreement? For example: if we link a GPL program against a BSD library, does that library become GPL?
NB: I believe very strongly that this is an effective way around this problem, so I may play devil's advocate with any replies. Hopefully we can hammer out a solution somehow.
Re:Why not an MIT/BSD license? (Score:2, Insightful)
A far better solution would to be to immediately change all of our source code licenses to allow only running on GPL systems.
Re:Why not an MIT/BSD license? (Score:2)
Re:Why not an MIT/BSD license? (Score:2)
I for one don't want to give up not only mine, but also community's rights to my code. You see, when I write something and release it, it's not only mine, it's also everyone's elses. Everybody scores.
Now, MS doesn't want to play _our_ game by _our_ rules. Instead all they want is to take, profit.
One'd think that IBM (the mothership of patenting in US) would have more problems with GPL than MS, but no..
Using my code, and not giving back to community. No that's not my piece of cake that I want to share with MS.
Wait.. wait, hold on.. (Score:2)
So here's an idea, instead of integrating their technologies directly into your GPL/LGPL program (Which you can't because of licensing terms), create a completely seperate application/module that can interface with your GPL/LGPL program using it's own protocol designed by you, or perhaps using XML, then make that interface program BSD Licensed, or anything other than GPL/LGPL. Sure it's half-assed, inefficent, but it's also beating them at their own game. For example say Mozilla wants to render a particular ActiveX control (now I'm speaking mostly from my ass because I don't know much about ActiveX at all). The Mozilla team could write an independent plugin, licensed under BSD License that implements that ActiveX control. There you go, a Microsoft technology you implemented using their shared source, but implemented in a plugin licensed under the BSD License, but used in an application licensed under GPL/LGPL.
Of course without the exact terms of the license they may or may not address this.. Then again most of what I just wrote I pulled directly from my ass, but I thought it made some sense. But it's good to see that Microsoft is seriously considering GPL/LGPL software a real competitor or they wouldn't be doing so much to try and stop the spread of it, even going so far as to say it's destroying capitalism. I'm surprised they haven't directly associated it with communism, karl marx and stalin..
This is completely useless. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario 1: An implementation can be released under the BSD license, which can then be 'forked' by a third party (the fork being GPL) and the original abandoned. Microsoft can do nothing. This license means nothing.
Scenario 2: For some reason in the license, the action outlined above is not possible. This must be due to something in the license. If it just says 'you may not relicense under GPL' you just relicense under the X license (say) and then under GPL. The only way microsoft can get around this is to say something like:
If you redistribute source of this program or of a derived work of this program this paragraph must remain intact, and the GPL or other IPR must not be used.
Now what do we call that, boys and girls? A viral license.
RMS's bogeyman was closed source, MS's is the GPL. They both discovered that if you want to release the source, you need a viral license. Unfortunately for microsoft, that makes their whole excuse for eradicating the GPL collapse. Oops.
Monopolistic argument? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is like showing the people how a disease can be cured and then forbid them use the cure because they give it for free and insist that their cure to be free.
I do agree GPL/LGPL makes about the same but shouldn't we apply here the general interest bias?
Layer between M$ and GPL'd software (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, the Linux kernel is GPL'd but allows non-Free modules to be loaded dynamically. Lots of Free programs may be linked against non-Free system libraries, e. g. on AIX or Solaris. Why can't we do the same with Samba? Of course, the module or library has to be optional, but so is a non-Free kernel module.
The net effect (sorry for the pun!) (Not!) (Score:3, Interesting)
Between the DMCA and other laws passed for the express purpose of enriching large corporations at the expense of the multitude of small niche competitors, and the rampant abuse of patent law, software development in the United States is rapidly becomming a closed guild wherein only the large corporations who own portfolios of spurious software 'patents' can afford to play. When an independent software developer or a small software company discovers that fundamental computing concepts are locked up in idiotic patents which they can not afford to either license or litigate, they will, I believe, decide to do something else with their time. Why not? If every piece of software you release into the world exposes you to the threat of financially ruinous litigation, how can you release anything? That is exactly the environment Microsoft is creating.
Yet not all software is developed in the United States. At the moment the rest of the world pays lip service to US copyright and patent law, including the DMCA, because the US is such a large market. But what happens when it becomes much more expensive to do business in the US because of the cost of defending your products against patent litigation, or due to the need to purchase multiple patent 'licenses' for every product you sell? In this case, extensive portfolios of software patents become a barrier to trade and I would expect to see action in international trade court against them at some point.
History teaches us that when confronted with difficult obstacles people tend to find a way over, around, or through them. I believe that we will find ways around these spurious, artificial legal barriers as well. Being a simple sort of person, I imagine that we'll end up simply ignoring them. Even Microsoft can't bring 10,000 patent infringement lawsuits against every individual writing GPL'd or otherwise competing software. They'll pick a few high-profile cases as warnings to others but eventually people will figure out that Microsoft is not about to spent a couple of million dollars suing each independent developer. I expect to see cases where developers release software and then 'disappear' into the void, essentially becoming phantom targets. I expect to see developers release software in other, more innovation-friendly countries. I expect that net effect of the DMCA and current patent law will be, like the tax code of the IRS, simply to make most of us criminals, just because no-one knows all of the law or all of the moronic patents which have been granted. We live with it now, we'll manage to live with it then. The difficulty for a societal point of view is that once people begin ignoring 'bad' laws, they ignore the 'good' ones also. Injudicious use of intellectual property law in a misguided attempt at protecting software monopolists will simply result in widespread disregard of all intellectual property laws, including copyright.
"Sten". My name is "Sten". As far as you know!
Not news (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not trolling, but that's not a news piece. Yes, it's on their 'news.com' site, but it's an opinion column, written by Bruce Perens.
I'm not saying he's not right, it's just that presenting it as news is misleading.
Stallman's most important acronym-project... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YHBT!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is about a license, that only an illegal monopoly could enforce. If someone else tried this, linux, and all other competitors would laugh at them, and watch them wither and die when they couldn't interoperate properly.
The "same law" that you speak of, doesn't allow a monopoly to use even copyrights and patents to strangle the entire industry into submission. I don't think you should be talking about someone else pulling their head out of their ass, before you do the same.
Re:YHBT!!! (Score:2)
The whole point of the article, and Microsoft's new "protocol licence" is that you are NOT free to "do better". Microsoft specifically seeks to prohibit certain classes of competitors from doing better.
Microsoft is the one that is too frightened to take it's chances in a free market.
Re:Geeze (Score:4, Funny)
Re:TCP/IP (Score:2)
What are you just fucking insane? How does implementing a protocol change that protocol itself?
No, said nicely... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Nothing you do can "infect" work of someone else with the GPL. Indeed, you can not affect their rights in any way. Microsoft's code is, by law, completely safe. (and they know this.)
There is no such thing as "IPR impairing" of Microsoft code... Unless Microsoft is the one doing the impairing. It just can't be done, no way, no how.
2) You cannot copyright a line protocol like TCP, or IP. The problem is that it can't be "fixed in a tangable medim", which is a requirement of copyright. Every packet is unique and transient, and such things can't be copyrighted. It's just the law.
3) However, interacting with another program via TCP can be considered "interoperation", and that IS a Copyright condition for creating a "derived work". The exact definitinon of a derived work of computer programming is, as I recall, "a system of programs that interoperate". The whole is a work, derived from works that make up each part of "the system".
But, interoperation alone is not enough. The parts must be somehow uniquely dependent on each other. You couldn't define Mozilla/IIS to be a derived work subject to the MS EULA, or the NPL, because Mozilla/Apache work just as well. Further, you can have a unique dependency if you reverse engineer the communications. So Mozilla would not subject to a MS EULA if you used only your analysis and knowledge of messages going in and out of IIS to build it.
Make sense?
Re:Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:2)
Didn't Linus say something like "He who writes the code get's to choose the license?"
Re:Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
This can be expanded to say "He who owns the code decides who sees it".
This is starting to look more like the hardline GPL supporters and Microsoft Executives lining up to take pot shots at each other.
Now I am not much of an expert on GPL licencing, however I am under the assumption that GPL is not an actual organisation. The problem is that Microsoft are starting to see that some of the GPL products are becoming a real threat (to Microsoft).
What context that the word "threat" is in is not entirely clear. But essentially going after a bunch of individuals to stop them from developing certain projects, which can affect the "bottom line" for Microsoft in many different ways.
I have seen one instance where a former employer of mine had a "client-server" program in the field. Someone went to the trouble of reverse engineering it. The effort was to write a Linux version of the program. However when this was done it revealed that there were some mistakes made when parts were added to the overall system in it's second generation. These "flaws" were identified and the program code itself was put out under GPL. This caused some pain, but overall the damage was minimalised.
The same thing happened with Microsoft and SAMBA. To the point where Microsoft technicians and the SAMBA people talk regularly. They also get stuck into each other on a regular basis. Many flaws with the SMB version 1 operation within many platforms were identified through the development of SAMBA.
With the recent changes in laws in the US, it is now harder for the SAMBA crowd to do what they normally do. This recent addition it makes it harder for the SAMBA people to do anything, without breaking some recent addition in the DCMA in relation to the latest releases of the Microsoft SMB protocol.
The side effects are enourmous, however Microsoft have recently been taking a lot of heat, and in an effort to keep what it is that they have, they are attacking the "opposition" any way that they can. Guess what, Netscape are not Microsoft's main competition anymore. However this recent act only takes care of part of their "problem" with their "opposition" as a whole.
It does not affect all of the projects that cannot be identified as part of the "non commercial" arena.
Re:Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:2)
Actually, what's special about the GPL is not the no-cost aspect (which many non-free licenses share, including some Micro$oft EULAs), but that it gives you rights instead of taking them away. The only requirement (i.e. "the deal") is that you in turn must pass on these rights.
Free beer is easy to get from any beverages company on a marketing run.
Welcome To The Real World. (Score:4, Interesting)
The above sentence is meaningless. First of all what do you mean by "standard"? A defacto standard like Flash, a standard ratified by a standards body, an industry standard (like Java), or something else? Secondly, regardless of what you meant if MSFT has patents on technology they are well within their rights to license it however they see fit.
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.
Interesting, I am curious as to what MSFT literature you read that made you come to that conclusion. From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL. They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc. This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away [google.com].
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business, it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code. Then again this is the same website where people bitch about Slashdot's responsibility to slashdotted webservers and how The Great Slashdot Whine Out will strike a blow for Freedom so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all.
Disclaimer:This post reflects my opinions and does not reflect the opinions, strategies, thoughts, plans or intentions of my employer
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. I believe this tall tale to be attributable to this [gnu.org]: There are, of course, provisions [gnu.org] in the GPL that protect your right to resell GPL software at any price.
I'm not [sleepycat.com] convinced [trolltech.com] that licensing your own code under the GPL means that you can't make a profit selling the stuff. Asserting that the mere existence of GPLed software makes it near impossible etc. etc. is basically complaining about the existence of competition ("Yer honor, they can't sell it that low! I'll go out of business!") Hehe. That bit was very nicely done. That google search seems to indicate that some people take this kind of rhetoric seriously, though...
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:3, Interesting)
They want to be able to say: "*ahem* Your program is taking too much of our marketshare. Now, when you agreed to our shared source license, you agreed that you've seen our IP, and further agreed that you have no right to our IP, and further agreed that any patents you may have cannot be used to defend yourself against us. Therefore, kill your program."
"You heard us. Kill your program. Take it off the market or we sue for infringement of our intellectual property, using the admissions you have already made in assenting to our license."
Why should they steal your code when they can deep-six it just so long as you have been, at some time, exposed to 'Shared Source'?
Re:Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:2)
No. The GPL is a permission statement. It is not a contract. It gives you generous permissions regarding the work, while taking away zero of your pre-existing rights. There is nothing you need to agree to in order to use, modify or distribute the work. Just follow standard copyright law to the letter, and the conditions placed upon the permissions.
Neither are the MS licenses contractual agreements. You have the legal right to not agree to them, and still use the software. This is because you legally aquired the right to use the software at the time of purchase, which preceeded the time you encountered the license.
Re:Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:2)
It's doesn't really work for shirts. Let's say we have GPL Ale. Each bottle should have the recipe for making the ale on the label so that a) people who buy your ale can make more for themselves if they want and b) people can clearly see what's in your Ale. If people make more Ale from your recipe, then they're obliged to put the recipe (and any changes they've made to it) on the bottle *if* they sell their own GPL'd Ale.
dave
Re:Microsoft can do this, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:NAS Vendors Effected (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if it's legal or if the patent claims are valid. It's to get the CEO's of appliance companies to go into their engineering dept. and say "see, we should have licensed from Microsoft to be *safe*".
It's all about the dollars and control of the vendors........
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:Separating Interface from Implementation, Legal (Score:3, Informative)
Whether or not this conditions is included, there's nothing a licensee can do that would affect the rights of Microsoft and its other licensees to use that specification.
It certainly looks like it is.
But the GPL and LGPL don't do that.
I and others believe that the people who came up with this aimed to imply, falsely, that the GPL and LGPL do place restrictions on bundled software, as a justification for banning their use for software based on Microsoft specifications.
I honestly can't see what these sections are supposed to protect Microsoft from, other than fair competition.
Re:This is how to fight fire with fire.... (Score:2)
Re:Breaking News Story (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maybe it's time to abandon Microsoft support? (Score:2)
Samba isn't something that Linux needs, it's something that Linux needs when working in a Windows environment.
Re:Gnu trademark? (Score:2)