Slashback: Picnic, Neonapster, Microsoft 122
Look at the nice horse they left. babbage writes "As part of ongoing antitrust settlement arrangements, Microsoft has 'opened' the source code to some of their protocol implementation source code. Go ahead and read the license -- but do keep an eye on the NDA you have to agree to first. If you find an NDA to be an objectionable first step -- and I'll admit, I haven't read the license because I don't agree to the NDA terms -- then speak up about it. The Department of Justice is accepting public comments from industry professionals about the new licensing terms. There is a real concern that such pseudo-open licensing could effectively scuttle development efforts on projects like Samba & Mono, but we need to get open access to the license in order to figure out what the risks are. If you have anything to contribute, now is the time to speak up to the DOJ."
Bring your own herring. Bill Kendrick writes: "From the folks who brought you the immensely popular "Linux10" event, comes Picn*x11, a picnic/barbecue celebrating 11 years of the Linux operating system. It's going to be held in Sunnyvale again, the Saturday after LinuxWorld Expo. So go RSVP now, and get your Picn*x11 t-shirt! (Proceeds go to EFF)"
With enough eyeballs many programs seem shallow, too. TheMMaster writes "Neonapster seems to have GPL'd their software, you can download the source here, not that I am terribly happy with what happened, but at least this seems to have been settled out of court ;) of course... it is still a cheap cdex rip off ;)"
LWN is good reading.
Keck writes "We all shed a tear for Linux Weekly News a little too soon maybe?
Yes, we know we said there would be no LWN.net Weekly Edition this time around, but, in the end, it was worth the trouble to put together a mini version. So here it is; with luck, the full Weekly will be back on August 15. "
Problem number one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I started to read the license, but then I got caught at part one of step one:
Well, I guess I'm out...
Re:Problem number one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
I know you kidding, but... (from Passport terms of use [passport.com])
Clearly, by sharing your passport account you are in violation of the passport user agreement. Congratulations, you just became Bill Gates towel boy...
Re:Problem number one... (Score:4, Insightful)
All that passage means, is that if you tell everyone your password, and someone else uses that to login as you, then it's not Microsoft's fault.
Which is fair enough.
By saying that 'you' are 'responsible' for maintaing the confidentiality, they are saying that no one else is going to do it for you.
If it said you are 'required' to maintain the confidentiality, THEN it would be more like you said.
However, I haven't read the rest of the terms of use, so I don't know that there isn't a passage like that. But the example above definitely isn't one.
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
Not Microsoft.
It should mean something else. But that's not what it says.
Re:Problem number one... (Score:3, Insightful)
By the phrase "You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your password and account information." I don't believe Microsoft is requiring you to maintain confidentiality, but instead they are disclaiming any of their own responsibility if your password is disclosed. ie: if you give your password to someone else, don't blame us, we're not responsible.
Of course, other clauses probably give them the rights to shut down accounts which they realize have been comprimised. For security reasons, of course, MS clearly only wants to protect their users
It's also a bit amusing and twisted to realize that statement also means that if Microsoft is hacked and your password and account information are stolen, that's your problem, not Microsoft's. Clearly you should have been responsible enough to not give it to MS in the first place
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
That means that you are responsible for however Microsoft, etc uses or abuses the account. No thanks.
Problem number two... you need IE (Score:2)
Let's all create passports
Here's problem number 2: you seem to need IE to create a .NET Passport. It doesn't let me, a user of Mozilla, access the page for creating or updating a .NET Passport.
Re:Problem number one... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft Communications Protocol Program
NDA Request Form Instructions
The first step in the Microsoft Communications Protocol Program is to obtain and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). To request an NDA, click on the link below and complete the request form... to facilitate confirmation of your request and avoid possible delays, it is important to use a Passport account with a verified e-mail address from a domain used by your company. Requests submitted using e-mail addresses from unrestricted or anonymous email domains (e.g., Hotmail) will not be handled without direct contact and verification from the company involved.
...and I thought my Hotmail account was my Passport. Well lets try anyway...
If you keep on going, logging in with your Passport you'll probably hit this page [microsoft.com]:
Microsoft Communications Protocol Program
NDA Request -- Passport Configuration
Which basically asks you to set up your Passport account to share your personal (although probably inaccurate) information with all Passport Services before you can even get to the protocol NDA request page...
Ummm, No thanks.
...and the next page (Score:3, Informative)
Re:...and the next page (Score:1)
is it a typo you made, or one on the site itself?
Re:Problem number one...[day two] (Score:2)
From: "Microsoft Registration System" no-reply@newsletters.microsoft.com
Reply-To: regsys-ndr@newsletters.microsoft.com
Subject: Microsoft.com Registration System Message
The next time you visit Microsoft.com, please remember your important login information.
Your Passport e-mail address is:
Your Microsoft.com e-mail address is:
Actually, I don't think there's anything at the other end worth jumping through so many hoops to sign any NDA (let alone theirs). Other posters have suggested that they are only "releasing" a bunch of already available and open third party protocols anyway. Perhaps the real intention is a combination of the following:
1. Appease the DOJ by suggesting that "We're opening up cough*our*cough source code. Yeah, that's the ticket."
2. Encourage curious developers to sign up for Passport and sign over all their personal info for tracking^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hconvenience purposes.
3. Goad some weblog user into posting their NDA and/or other documents verbatim on Slashdot for copyright entrapment...
Re:Problem number one... (Score:1)
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
Re: It's a nefarious trap! (Score:2, Informative)
Anonymous Coward's fear that this could be interpreted as "available" by US Courts is well-founded. We should *HAMMER* the Court with comments that (1) this program must not be used to place *any* restriction upon the rights of any person or group of persons to reverse-engineer Microsoft System Behavior; and perhaps (2) that to assist in re-establishing a competitive marketplace, Microsoft should be required to release all of this information to the general public, on a website, without registration or even cookies of any kind. (After all, they were found GUILTY. Why is the DOJ acting like the plaintiffs lost the case?)
I previously submitted comments regarding discrimination against Open Software developers in this section of the RPFJ, and they didn't change the wording of the relevant section by a single word. Perhaps the unnaceptable wording in this section was inspired by a large campaign contribution from Micrsoft to the failed Senate campaign of Mr. Ashcroft. In any case, it remains a BIG PROBLEM and the plaintiff attorneys need to hear from us now, in large numbers, with careful arguments. After all, they're supposed to be working for us.
Re: It's a nefarious trap! (Score:1)
Re:Problem number one... It's a nefarious trap!![B (Score:3, Informative)
You can't prove a negative. It does answer the question a defendent might pose, something like "how did the defendent get access to M$ well guarded secrets?" but it doesn't prove anything by itself.
Perhaps unlikely, but well worth considering anyway.
And for those who read at +1 or better only, now you have the entire comment.
Re:Problem number one... It's a nefarious trap!![B (Score:1)
If the plaintiff can't establish that you had access to his stuff, then the court can reasonably infer that similar features in the code are either required to implement the functionality or were independently created. Either possibility is a win for the defendant.
If the source code was locked up in a vault at MS with only trusted people having access, then MS won't be able to prove access. You can then use clean room reverse engineering methods to prevent contaminating the programmers.
But if the code is available by having someone fill out an NDA in favor of a bogus company, you'll never be able to establish (by a preponderance of the evidence) that your programmers were not contaminated by seeing MS code.
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
When MS tried to give themselves access to my one Microsoft machine by changing the MS Media Player license, I tried to see if they had any further info in the Support section.
I couldn't get to the Support section for Media Player through a web search engine because I don't have a Passport.
I couldn't get in the appropriate area from the main Support page because the Javascript topic menu doesn't work in Netscape.
I couldn't report problems because I don't have an MS Passport.
I can't reach the Microsoft Contact pages because I don't have an MS Passport.
So I couldn't find if MS had further info about the Media Player license, I couldn't get info on how to remove Media Player, I couldn't report those problems, and I can't find a phone number to contact Microsoft.
I had to use a phone book to call a Microsoft office in a nearby large city and ask them for a Support phone number.
Gee, guess what. I can not remove MS Media Player. I can only remove the icon. So I can not just view pictures and get beeps for errors, I must keep the Media Player bloat.
Boy, I'm sure that .NET will be just wonderful...
Re:Problem number one... (Score:2)
Re:Problem number one... (Score:1)
Re:Problem number one... (Score:1)
Re:Problem number one... (Score:1)
It gets worse! (Score:1)
vis. what happens next, if you actually do try to sign up. (yes, I feel like I'm selling my soul - but I really want that source code.)
I'm using Opera 6.0. Any http/user-agent strings other than MSIE 5.0 will generate this error.
Difference (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Difference (Score:3, Informative)
Correct. NeoNapster ripped off CDex to create NeoAudio. NeoNapster is not only a Gnutella servant, its also the collective name of the people who make it. Thats why you can download NeoAudio from NeoNapster.com [neonapster.com].
Re:Difference (Score:2)
Therefore i also recommend neoaudio!
Re:Difference (Score:1)
Re:Difference (Score:1)
CDex? Try EAC. (Score:1)
Of course, if it's N'Sync, it won't really make a difference -- it's crap no matter which CD ripper you use.
Re:CDex? Try EAC. (Score:1)
I vouch for these! Lame encoding is the next logical step in encoding MP3. It encodes it with a variable bitrate, so that you get better quality in the parts that need it. It's really a shame that there aren't many out there...
As for the other options, can't say anything...
Re:CDex? Try EAC. (Score:1)
For Mac OS X users, iTunes does it. Just change the bit rate for encoding to "variable" under Preferences.
(This may also be available in iTunes 2 for OS 9, but I'm not going to reboot and install it just to check.)
--saint
Re:CDex? Try EAC. (Score:1)
The source code isn't new (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The source code isn't new (Score:1)
Still, I wouldn't trust such a company, scums who are forced to be nice would turn to scum the moment no one's watching anymore.
Speaking of scum, how the fuck does MS get away with calling that scheme of theirs "opening the source", when it's locked away down in a dark basement with broken stairs and light behind the door which had a sign "beware of the Jaguar"? Or the equivalent of knowing who to sue when the source gets out, hell why the fuck would they want an email address which is traceable! Fuck, and that's just to get a bloody fucking NDA!!! Somoene post that shit here, they probably want your soul for a peek at their source code/protocol information.
Comments at download.com (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:1)
Probable the plus posts are neoaudio creators/rippers anyway.
Surprise surprise... (Score:1)
Yay download.com! You've turned into 100% pure corporation!
=-Jippy
Re:Surprise surprise... (Score:1)
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:1)
censorship@download.com (Score:2, Interesting)
The backlash from the HardOCP incident was quite loud, and painful for the offending parties.
Gotta love the company.. (Score:2)
There really are some gems on the download.com pagethat guy points to for neonapsters ripping player, these are from the "only positive [com.com]" remarks option for their CD ripper (old?), i didnt dare read the "only negative"
"Superb! Just like CDex, but with spyware"
I love this program. I used to use CDex, but I was annoyed at the lack of useless spyware included in the download. Since I switched to NeoAudio, all those troubles have gone away. I now have way more spyware and adware than I know what to do with. Thanks, NeoNapster! "
and
"Best spyware I've seen in years!!!"
I've been using NeoAudio anally since it was first released. Forget CDex!!! CDex doesn't invade your privacy and solicit like NeoAudio does... NeoAudio is the BEST spyware out there, BAR NONE!!!
even cmdrTaco gets in on the action with...
"Wow! The best of its kind I have seen!"
This is an incredibly well made piece of software. It completely outperforms CDEX and the SpyWare is only enabled if you request it, and in return, you get 100+ free songs. This completely rocks. Don't use anything but this!
Thing is props for giving out the source code as GPL but is this just another morpheus [musiccity.com] type company who get GPL code change a few words and brand it their own, and give it away with spyware contributing nothing to open source ,
or
are they a honest company only wanting to advance the concept of filesharing [gnucleus.net] further by contributing something worthy to P2P other than "free spyware" and a fancy GUI ?
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:2, Interesting)
When sharing your opinion of a product, please observe the following do's and don'ts. Do's
All submitted ratings and written comments become the sole property of CNET, Inc. (CNET) and may be used at CNET's sole discretion. Ratings and written comments are generally posted within two to four business days. However, CNET reserves the right to remove or refuse to post any submission for any reason. You acknowledge that you, not CNET, are responsible for the contents of your submission.
Did anyone else get this?
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:2)
To clarify the parent post for those who can't read between the lines:
1. Content of ratings and comments become the sole property of CNET.
2. But if you post a comment, you are solely responsible for the content, not CNET.
Now those are two ridiculous and contrary statements. My interpretation of ownership and/or copyright law (whichever apply here if now both) was that if you were the sole owner of a piece of intellectual property it was also explicity implied that you were the one responsible for it as well.
I wonder if there's a good way to challenge that. Maybe sue CNET for slander/libel/IP copyright infringement, etc AFTER you've had a friend (with stealthy anon skillz) post an objectionable comment on their comment boards?
Or maybe post a comment or 500 to the effect of "The poster of this comment does not agree to the CNET comment posting disclaimer and as such, CNET holds only 50% ownership of this comment and CNET is the party solely responsible for its content."
Not deleted. Still There. (Score:4, Informative)
You can still access the old comments thru this url. http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html?o
And if you click on the 'NeoAudio' link in the bar labelled "CNET > Downloads > Windows > Audio > Rippers & Encoders > NeoAudio > User Opinions" you will see this 'update' message.
Once you do this, you will be brought to the new comments section for the updated neoaudio. Which resides on http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10137006.html?o
This makes me curious. Can an author of a product on download.com simply erase a ton of bad publicity on it's own by simply releasing minor point releases every couple of days ?
Re:Not deleted. Still There. (Score:1)
Yes, they can. On the other hand, they're also erasing any good publicity they have.
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:1)
What I find a lot more interesting is the fact that they claim that average rating is 3 out of 5 for every category, when approximiately 35 or 36 completely panned it (out of the 44 or so that were posted when I last looked), and of the rest, only one or two had 5's, and the rest were mediocre.
Ah, statistics ... with them you can say anything you want.
At least download.com is warning users... (Score:2, Interesting)
Editor's note: This download includes additional applications that are bundled within the software's installer file, some of which may be provided by parties other than the developer of this download. These applications may deliver advertisements, collect information, overlay content or graphics on the Web site you are viewing, or modify your system settings. As with all downloads, CNET recommends that you pay close attention to the options presented to you during the installation process. Known third-party applications bundled with this download include SaveNow and TopText. For more information, please read CNET News.com's report [cnet.com] on bundled software.
Re:Comments at download.com (Score:1, Funny)
whats the news with MS (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see anywhere that MS gives the Exchange protocol for example, so whats the point?
Also- regarding LWN, most of the donations have been bounced back due to some stupid company thinking, so PLEASE re-send them your donations by other ways (PayPal etc..)
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:2)
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:2)
I dunno, I'm sure there's some information [lwn.net] somewhere. I guess you just gotta look a bit.
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:4, Interesting)
PAY PAL is run by idiots who make a buck freezing accounts with NO recourse.
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:1)
PAY PAL is run by idiots who make a buck freezing accounts with NO recourse.
Actually, from your story, it seems that paypal is run by some fairly intelligent and quite successful con-artists
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:2)
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:2, Informative)
From the tone of your mail, it sounds like you're chastising LWN for only accepting PayPal at the moment. I don't think this is especially fair as it appears the reason they've had to fall back to only using PayPal is that their credit card clearing company did the same kind of shitty thing to them [lwn.net] as PayPal did to you.
They do say in the article that they're shopping around for a new clearing company. Maybe you'll feel differently about donating when they find one.
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:1)
But "mak[ing] a buck freezing accounts"??? That doesn't make any sense. They LOST money by not letting you use your account. It's bad business practice, pure and simple. Not only did they lose that specific piece of business, and any that you would have made in the next 5 weeks/future, they lose the business of people who read your story.
So keep telling people. So they don't make a buck. Idiots usually don't.
Storys Like Yours Are Why I'll Never Use PayPal (Score:2)
It is stories like yours (of which there are a vast number it seems) which is why I have never, and will never, use paypal.
Even when not doing so is damn inconvinient, or expensive.
When I made my $100.00 donation to the Free Blender Fund [blender3d.com], I paid $20.00 to Western Union to wire the money to Holland rather an open a paypal account. At least I know Western Union won't "freeze" my account indefinitely the way Pay Pal is wont to do, and while I'm sure there are more effecient ways to wire money overseas, paypal will never be an option.
Re:whats the news with MS (Score:3, Informative)
If what you looked at was the list of "Microsoft Communications Protocol Program Standards and Other Published Protocols" [microsoft.com], that's not a list of the formerly-closed protocols for which they're publishing information, it is, as they say on that page:
a list of already published protocols that they use.
Only one of them is a Microsoft-proprietary protocol, namely CIFS (and even that has been published elsewhere). In fact, on the Microsoft Settlement Program Communications Protocol Program [microsoft.com] page, which links to that other page, they quite explicitly say that those protocols are not being licensed under this program:
There's probably some legal reason why they have to, or think they have to, enumerate all those protocols, even though you don't have to license most of them from Microsoft or sign an NDA or anything.
Dear god its the sign of the borg--run (Score:3, Funny)
Knowing MS I think not.
Re:Dear god its the sign of the borg--run (Score:1)
You can only see 7 of 9 comments? Man, and I thought my vision was bad... get some glasses!
How many comments can you see if an article doesn't mention Micorosoft? More? Less?
Passport (Score:1)
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Personally, I'd love to see a products--commercial or otherwise--which use GPL'd works in a productive manner. Gnucleus + CDex + Ogg + LAME + Freenet + OpenNap + VirtualDub...now that would be cool, if they where integrated correctly. Would definitely make one hell of a file sharing program.
Some key points - cliffnotes for monopoly abuse (Score:4, Informative)
"...Microsoft will make available, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, any communications protocol implemented in a Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP or successor desktop operating system that is used to interoperate or communicate natively with a Microsoft server operating system..."
"...Microsoft's Communications Protocol Program will make available for license by others, on a royalty basis, more than 100 proprietary protocols that were not previously available. These protocols can be used, in accordance with the license and payment agreement terms, to develop a broad range of server software products that use the protocols solely to interoperate or communicate with the covered Windows client operating systems..."
"... Consistent with industry practice, licensees of these protocols are required to protect Microsoft's intellectual property appropriately and are further obligated to pay specified royalties for the use of the licensed communications protocols and associated intellectual property..."
"...Third parties that want to license protocol information related to authentication and digital rights management must also pass an entry requirement related to their ability to reliably and responsibly maintain the security of this information and integrity of such systems..."
and finally...
"...Five years, but a licensee may also sign up to a new license at any point up until the end of the consent decree - which has a five year term. Throughout the term of the consent decree we will continue to make the covered protocols available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms..."
Re:Some key points - cliffnotes for monopoly abuse (Score:1, Insightful)
So, to obtain this "open" source code, one has to agree to three ongoing licenses - one or more which will probably be perpetual and subject to change without notice. And loyal MSN(TM) users are excluded.
This is not open. This is not reasonable or non-discriminatory.
Philly picnic (Score:3, Informative)
The issue was with the copyright, not source code (Score:1)
Don
They may have given the source but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the current download.com's removal of ratings and comments only decreases my already low trust of reviews on download sites. Now it seems more evident that if you are the author/spyware writer/company and do not agree with the review/accusations/etc, or you get too many bad reviews, the site runners will "fix" things in your favor. Does anyone know if Download.com responded to those of you that contacted them about the GPL violation?
CDex author warns of using NeoAudio (Score:5, Informative)
In addition there is a small but worthwhile discussion [freedb.org] over at Freedb. Some Slashdotters have missed the fact that Mr. Faber does not claim NeoAudio violates the license, he is merely suggesting potential users make informed decisions on whether to use CDex or NeoAudio. Logically, there is no reason to use NeoAudio -- it offers no improvements over CDex.
Of course, there's always Exact Audio Copy [exactaudiocopy.de], which has proved itself in the mp3 scene as the de-facto standard for ripping.
Charging for source code??? (Score:2)
Not sleazy...normal business. (Score:2, Insightful)
And as you said...the functionality is already in Windows, and exposed through interfaces. If you are on Windows and just want to use the interfaces without knowing about the plumbing, you still can...just like you can use your front door without a schematic of the lock.
Did you really think? (Score:3, Interesting)
mod me as troll if you want, but this is what I honestly think.
Do you really think they were going away? When places run out of money/go bankrupt, they just disappear, they don't ask for money and put 'just one more edition' out This whole begging for money is starting to sound like those commericals in the 80's "Going out of business, get a good deal now!" But they never did go out of business.
Re:Did you really think? (Score:1)
LWN report [lwn.net] that they got $25,000 of donations and advertising just after they announced their financial problems. While this isn't enough to guarantee their long term survival, it does seem to be keeping them going in the short-term.
Microsoft: worse than before (Score:5, Insightful)
Standard protocols should not be owned. Now Microsoft is trying to use the settlement with the DOJ to actually extend its IP ownership to common protocols, beyond actual source code/implementations. Microsoft's power over third parties and the market actually increases, contrary to the original motivation beyond the anti-trust suit.
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:1)
Do you know what irks me to no end? Am I the only person who still remembers that MS didn't even invent Netbios, the backbone of CIFS. They stole it from 3Com back in the middle 80's. Don't believe me? Google search on 3Com Lanmanager.
Back to your topic. I just informed my boss, that his backend SQL Server software might cost him a lot of money to talk to our numerous front end Linux clients. He might just finally spend some money on a Oracle or DB2 license. We are in a "wait and see what Microsoft does mode".
And before the flames begin, I just started with this company a little over a year ago. And yes, I am slowly introducing MySQL, PostGRES, etc. as options, so byte me
Enjoy.
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:2)
When anoyone discusses the disadvantages of te GPL, the response is a resounding "if you don't like the license, just don't use the software." Although that's usually besides the point in my observations.
Now, everyone gets to throw stones at microsoft because the license to their protocols is too restrictive! Come on. This doesn't take away your right to use Samba under the GPL. It doesn't take away your right to reverse engineer some Microsoft protocols. If you don't want to follow their license, then JUST DON'T DO IT!
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:2)
Obvious implications, although I doubt even Microsoft is that devious.
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:2)
This is sort of like if I'm stalking/harassing you, and you go to a judge to get a restraining order against me. The judge agrees with you ... and then tells me (?!) to write up the terms of the restraining order.
Sleep tight. [Sloppy peeks through evilviper's window, breathing heavily.]
Re:Microsoft: worse than before (Score:2)
I agree that the terms aren't good, but I was just trying to deflect the posts saying how this was some evil tactic to force SAMBA to release under the M$ NDA. Crazy things like that, which were moded to +5.
As for staking, go right ahead! You'd get tired of me before I got tired of you! Come on... Stalkers are just the groupies of those that don't have bands. And groupies are a good thing.
Has no one... (Score:1, Insightful)
NeoAudio - copyright strings (Score:2)
NeoAudio was the problem (though NeoNapster might also be in violation too).
The problem was not that it was a rip-off of CDex, or that the source code was not available - AFAIK it was.
The problem is that the copyright strings were removed and replaced with new strings attributing only NeoAudio/NeoNapster, not the original authors of CDex.
Why must you register as a company? (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't, as a nice person looking to learn about whatever protocol, go and get a copy of the source. Why the hell not? Probably never occured to the bastards that a student or hobby programmer would be interested.
How am I going to become a good coder if I don't have any good code to learn from!
Re:Why must you register as a company? (Score:2)
Probably never occured to the bastards that a student or hobby programmer would be interested.
Au contraire. They specifically intend to eliminate hobbiest programming, because that's where a lot of GPL software comes from. As was pointed out repeatedly in various fora during the comment phase of the settlement, Microsoft wants to condition release of this sort of information on such criteria as whether the company is deemed (by Microsoft) to have a sound business plan.
"Sorry Red Hat, you just aren't profitable enough to see this."
The part that irks me most (and there are a lot of them) is that you can't even know the terms of the license until after you've signed the NDA. Fsck that!
Re:Why must you register as a company? (Score:1)
Re:Why must you register as a company? (Score:2)
This reponse from the DOJ is especially damning because it contradicts the requirement of having a DUNS number to submit the NDA.
from here [usdoj.gov]:
" 74. Other commentors express concern that individuals, particularly individual developers writing and trading code within the "open source" community, might not qualify as "entities" and so might not qualify as "ISVs" under Definition VI.I.(80) The RPFJ, however, sets no minimum size or organizational standard for an "entity." Any individual or group of individuals, whether incorporated or not, that otherwise meets the definition of "ISV" is considered to be an ISV within the meaning of the RPFJ."
and here [usdoj.gov]:
" 464. Several commentors express concern that Microsoft somehow may claim that an open source developer, or a network of open source developers, or a marketer of open source software, should not be considered to meet Section VI.I's definition of an "ISV" and so should not receive the benefits and protections given to ISVs by the RPFJ.(437) The United States believes this concern is groundless. See the discussion in Section III(A), above."
Gee I wonder how many more of the commentators' concerns turn out to be groundless just like the DOJ says...
Re:Why must you register as a company? (Score:1)
Re:Why must you register as a company? (Score:2)
This is the same kind of reasoning behind non-compete agreements that many in the tech sector are required to sign before accepting employment: without these agreements, the employer would go into job #2 with knowledge of proprietary information from job #1, and it would be too much of a legal minefield to try and disprove the use of any of this IP.
NeoNapster is... (Score:1)
i really hate texts like: similar interface like morpheus... why?
MORPHEUS IS A RIPOFF OF GNUCLEUS...
conclusion:
NEONAPSTER = MORPHEUS == Gnucleus...
Gnucleus is a rather good gnutella client... not that stable, but it works... if you use windows, visit their website [sourceforge.net]. and all linux/unix users, use mutella
i guess NEO stands for NEON@ZI!...
and yes, i also noticed it... NEOAUDIO is a ripoff of CDex... never ever heard of before...
Limewire does that too themselves (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.limewire.com/ [limewire.com]
But there's also GPLed source code now (not very easy to compile though).
http://www.limewire.org/ [limewire.org]
Re: Limewire does that too themselves (Score:1)
Neonapster is adding adware to someone elses code which is OK legally (since it's GPL), but morally
Sign NDA to get to read License? (Score:1, Redundant)
As I read the microsoft page there, it looks like you have to sign the non-disclosure agreement before you can even see the license - does this mean you cant disclose the licensing terms?
download.com's policy (Score:2, Informative)
Guidelines
When sharing your opinion of a product, please observe the following do's and don'ts.
Do's
Do be succinct, accurate, constructive and objective.
Do compare the product to other competing products (or to previous versions of this product) that you've used.
Do provide examples of how the product or its manufacturer did or did not meet your expectations.
Dont's
Don't use offensive language.
Don't submit an opinion of the product if you don't own or have first-hand experience with it.
Don't submit more than one opinion of the product.
Don't submit an opinion of the product if your company makes or resells it, or makes or resells a product that competes with it. (CNET intends to create vendor-response opportunities in the future.)
Don't submit any self-serving, commercial links or comments.
You must be 13 years of age or older to submit personal information to CNET. In compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, CNET is no longer accepting name and e-mail address information from users who are under 13 years of age.
All submitted ratings and written comments become the sole property of CNET, Inc. (CNET) and may be used at CNET's sole discretion. Ratings and written comments are generally posted within two to four business days. However, CNET reserves the right to remove or refuse to post any submission for any reason. You acknowledge that you, not CNET, are responsible for the contents of your submission. [http://download.com.com/1200-20-861626.html]
GPL amendment time? (Score:1)
Re:GPL amendment time? (Score:1)
"NeoNapster and NeoAudio are open source software under the GNU General Public License."
The source code IS available on the site.
This absolutely stinks! (Score:4, Informative)
I have to agree to the license terms and pay a fee to get the source.
I also have to provide MS with a Dunn & Bradstreet ID number to prove that I'm really a company.
I have to authenticate all my requests via Passport, thus I am required to provide Microsoft all kinds of personal information AND give them permission to use it in any way they see fit.
Finally
Thanks Microsoft. You've just done the non-settling states job for them. You have conclusively proven the need for more stringent antitrust penalties against yourself.
I WILL be filing my comments with the DOJ later this morning.
Microsoft... (Score:4, Interesting)
I get the following error with Mozilla 1.0
Browser Not Supported
Microsoft®
It used to work just fine, oh well... guess they don't think that Mozilla is worth supporting.
Cats out of Bags (Score:2)