Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized 582
Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team."
Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
is it just me or does this remind anyone else of the whole "we are going to release our source
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government has no balls! Or should I say the justice department doesn't. Microsoft has been declared a monopoly. They have been convicted of crimes and bad business practices.
What has been the outcome: absolutely nothing!
The american government is quick to drop bombs on other countries and people but when dealing with their own they can't do a damn thing.
The convicted party has more rights than the victims (in this case everyone). This is wholly unfair!
How many years has this been in the courts and microsoft isn't doing a damn thing to fix it. They fight and lie, and tie up the court system, and nothing comes of it. The justice department really needs to do something about this case.
If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.
This article just goes to show that nothing will come of this court case. It will have all been a big waste of everyones time and effort, everyone except microsofts that is.
-the opinions expressed above are my own. As this is still a free country(I think) I am entitled to express my rights to free speech. If you don't agree with my comments, then don't; that is your right also.
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
actually what bothers me most is that they can but WONT do anything. which is what i think bothers alot of 'informed' americans. the US gov't is backing mega corps or conglamorates over "average joe". and thats not how this gov't was SUPPOSED TO BE. it was supposed to be "for the people by the people and of the people".
take a poll. how many americans wanna be raped by the mega-corps ?
and belive me this goes past micro$haft. as much as i hate them this is a much much bigger issue than just micro$haft.
i mean think about it, how many people are employeed by the RIAA and MPAA combined ? how about in the US alone ? and Microsoft ? a good amount right ? how many americans are having their rights stripped away ? alot more than would profit from letting micro$haft continue thier prctices. or too continue ignoring the current practices of the **aa's.
to put it simple - the american gov't is letting americans down. weather they know it or not. this is just a case in point.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
The US policy of "regime change" is a part of policy of backing megacorps. (The only real change is that the US government has recently made some of this policy overt, rather than covert.)
i mean think about it, how many people are employeed by the RIAA and MPAA combined ? how about in the US alone ? and Microsoft ? a good amount right ?
If you measure the number as a proportion of the population (even just considering real people and not all the "non mega" corporate entities) you'd be talking a tiny proportion. Best measured on a per million scale, since a percentage would defintly round down to zero.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Interesting)
Two years ago when the first class had to retire, they were replaced by people who had little-to-no legislative ability and were EVEN MORE tied to special-interest groups and corporations than the people they replaced.
Do you put term limits on your dentist or family doctor? They're in the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies, you know.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Typical. (Score:5, Insightful)
The government has no balls.
Not true. Clinton/Reno was beating up on Microsoft quite a bit.
The Republicans dropped most of the case the moment they got Bush in, and it's unlikely that they're going to start up anything again soon.
The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.
Re:Typical. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, conversely, it could be said the Democrats are a lot better than the Republicans at using the abusive powers of government.
Somebody had to say it. Might as well be me.
Re:Typical. (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, the Dems really kicking Disney's ass over in Congress right now, aren't they?
interesting factoid (Score:3, Interesting)
Mark Webbink, Red Hat's general counsel quoted in the article, went to law school with a co-worker of mine in Seattle. He interned at Micro$oft during his summers there. I wonder if there were any legal hijinks going on there.
As you probably know, it's illegal for any corporate lawyer to make disparaging remarks about competition, as he'll usually get slapped with a charge of contempt immediately.
Re:interesting factoid (Score:5, Funny)
Re:interesting factoid (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:interesting factoid (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, though I don't understand why I must swear secrecy to read the LICENSE. The rest is all perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned.
But what bothers me the most is that this even has to happen. The fact that this information was not previously made available to developers on purpose should call for some big fines or something, shouldn't it? It's been going on for years.. I always had the theory that it would make sense for MS to have certain "special" ways to hook a program into Windoze that only they knew about. Now that it's proven, I think that just making them give up the goods is not enough punishment.
Re:interesting factoid (Score:3, Informative)
A protocol is the flow of data and an agreement on the type of data that will be transported within that flow.
An API is an interface allowing one entity to interact with another entity. Normally that interaction causes an action of some type to be taken.
Now then, it is certainly possible to have a known protocol with an unknown API. Knowing the protocol alone does little for you. Likewise, the inverse is also true. Knowing what the API is and how to use it does little good if you are unable to convey your intentions if you don't know what the protocol is.
I point that out as you seem to imply that knowing an API will be helpful while knowing the protocol may not. Fact is, BOTH are very important and this has nothing to do with "make[ing] 2 pieces of software running on the same machine work better together...". Fact is, it has everything to do with making software work better together regardless as to their location (same or different machine).
You further went on to comment, "the only reason Samba would need an API would be if they were trying to write software for Windows that tied into the OS somehow". That of course, if incorrect. If you look at my first statment you'll soon realize why. The API may be needed to allow SAMBA to remotely access windows services OR allow windows machines to remotely access SAMBA services.
Remember, the protocol is only the portion which transports data. The API or interface is what determines how that transported data will be used once it's delivered. They are distinct yet closely complimentary.
So, in summary, an API is often worthless if you don't have means to access it. Likewise, a protocol is often worthless if you don't know what and why it is you're supposed to be transporting in it. Here's an example. Imagine an API as a form that you have to fill out. If you don't use the form or incorrectly fill it out, the person that gets it will throw it away. That form is the API. Now, imagine an envelope. If you don't place the form into the envelope and then, correctly label, stamp and clearly enscribe on it, it will never get to the designated person. In short, you may as well not bother filling out the form (let alone correctly) if you don't know how to get it to the designated party.
We clear now? Surely you can now understand why they are BOTH very important.
Re:interesting factoid (Score:4, Interesting)
NDA be damned! (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one person, company, etc. to go through the process then illegally release it to the world. NDA be damned!
Re:NDA be damned! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NDA be damned! (Score:3, Insightful)
So why not fight fire with fire? Microsoft has been perjuring itself under oath and illegally maintaining its illegal monopoly (yes both the act and the monopoly are illegal) for quite some time. Hell, who wouldn't be willing read and memorize their protocol specifications and swear under oath that they were reverse engineered, even if it was against Microsoft's (IMO illegal) license agreement.
Re:NDA be damned! (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically a monopoly is not illegal. A monopoly that is used to create others is illegal (see so called 'anti-trust' acts (example of Windows creating monopolies or at the least attempted monopolies of IE, MS Office (though they may not be legally declared monopolies, and I think their percent is lower than reported, but they are very high.)
If they want IP protection... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they claim that the information was stolen, then disclosed to third parties, *it doesn't matter* if the original disclosure was illegal: the information loses trade secret status, and the damages they are able to recover are *only* against the original discloser.
Only patents and copyrights provide IP protection for disclosed information.
-- Terry
Re:NDA be damned! (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
Oh, come ON... (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone needs to take them back to court for this.. or try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do. This interpretation of the "settlement" is just absurd. And what a slap in the face of the rest of the world.. making you use friggin MICROSOFT PASSPORT to gain access.
And "request" forms? Have they denied anybody the forms? Are they allowed to deny forms? Great. They're going to be nice and slow..and selective..
Un friggin believable. I can't believe they're just getting away with all of this.
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Microsoft and Iraq remind me of each other in this respect. They steadfastly adhere to bullshit stories while the opposition builds up a big head of steam, and they only budge from their bullshit stories for as long as it takes for the danger to avert, then they close the source/kick out the inspectors again. Playing fair with organizations that don't sucks.
So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: So how come we're not bombing Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, aerial bombing campaign or not, the court's decisions do need to be enforced. Interoperability is essential [nist.gov] for economic growth and since Microsoft has been the largest single obstacle to interoperability, you could say that it looks like Microsoft has been a factor in holding back eonomic growth.
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they have lots of money?
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. Not that much.
"Microsoft employs many Americans."
Not really. They have under 30 thousand employees. Let's Compare that to some other large employers shall we.
IBM = 312,000
AT&T = 151,000
Exxon = 131,000
Philip Morris = 140,000
The paltry 30K employees of MS could very easily be absorbed into the US economy.
"Microsoft isn't a terrorist state."
No but they are convicted criminals.
"Microsoft buys politicians."
There is no debating this.
"Microsoft is mostly clean, un-threatening white guys."
Mostly white sure. Un-threating? depends on who you are I suppose. Unethical most likely? Remember these people have a cult like attitude towards their company and Bill Gates and have remarkable ability to rationalize away any evil committed in their name and with their help.
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of Microsoft hiring one of their own PR people to write an "I switched to Windows XP from the Mac." Ah, those were the days (i.e. yesterday).
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, come ON... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they are requiring an NDA and charging for the right to use the 'communications protocols'. There is no where in the proposed settlement that states they have to make their code "Open Source" is there?
Just because something isn't GNU doesn't make it illegal.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: And the problem is... (Score:3, Funny)
> It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem
So, what do you have to do to look at the NDA?
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's nothing to stop them from giving different terms to differnt folks in secret (remember those OEM licenses?) and simply bypassing the law.
It's TOTALLY wrong, IMO. There just isn't a good excuse for this; it makes them look like they're covering something up (and it wouldn't be the first time, according to the findings of fact in this case!)
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Until the judge issues her decision, anything that MS is doing is just posturing...
Re:And the problem is... (Score:3, Informative)
However, the DoJ, chose on their own, to take break-up off the table. They took away their best bargaining chip for reasons people can feel free to speculate on. In their later seperate action, the hold-out States also chose not to pursue break-up and instead wanted full unbundlin, port of office and IE to rival browsers inc. Linux, and a crown jewell provision to open up source code for future violations.
The gist is this, Judge CKK is not going to impose a break-up that no one is asking for. It will probably be a remedy that is stronger than the DoJ sell-out but less stringent than the State's proposal. Expect MS to appeal again, expect this not to end soon, or expect the unexpected.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's besides the point here. It's quite clear what the intention of opening the protocols was, and surrounding the protocol information an NDA would go against the spirit of the ruling (which may be illegal if it were solid, and it may be evil as much as anything is "evil").
Did Microsoft break the letter of the law? There's no information here. You may ignore any post following this one as there's no information to base any decision on.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops - my post was supposed to look like this: (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are wrong - and here is why:
*If* the Samba Team actually viewed anything that is protected by an NDA, *every* peice of code that they write could be scrutinized for violation of that NDA. However, if it's provable that no member of the Samba Team is beholden to an NDA, and happens to write code that looks just like something that *is* under an NDA - they are still in the clear. Got it?
Besides, this is evil and here's why. We don't know what the licensing scheme is. We *cannot* know unless we sign the NDA that prevents us from telling anybody else. So, not only is the information that is supposed to be public, not, but so is the pricing scheme that the information is licensed under.
Their audacity (and arrogence) amazes me...
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong! Read C.a.r.e.f.u.l.ly (Score:5, Insightful)
. In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.
No, you are not signing an NDA to see information about the protocols or any source code or anything.
You are being forced to use a proprietory authentication system controlled by the guilty party and have to sign a legal agreement just to find out how you can GET the information.!!!
And what do you think you will have to sign+pay to access the protocol information itself?
This is very, very wrong.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Interesting)
That was one of the whole points of the legal action remember, to prevent them leveraging their desktop monopoly into the server space.
Repeat after me... competition is *good*
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Speaking for myself (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm working on an implementation of a closed-source proprietary application. This app is installable on unix and Windows boxes.
The code repository is on an AIX box here, and I needed to make that available to a Windows box. I don't have root on the AIX box, but I do have root on a linux box. I nfs-mounted the code repository to my Linux box, and was able to export _that_ filesystem using Samba in a matter of minutes.
Rather than fighting political battles, I'm getting my work done. That would be much more difficult if the Samba team wasn't doing a great job.
I've read some comments dinging Samba for not being a perfect clone of SMB/CIFS. I can understand frustration when you need a feature that's not available yet, but we should all be thankful that any interoperability is possible.
Keep up the good work!
Regards,
Anomaly
Re:And the problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the problem is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether their accusation is accurate or not is not the point, you are potentially screwed over by Microsoft lawyers. They can make your like hell just because they feel like it.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Open Source Developer:
Ok, Mr. Gates, you will sell me the protocol specs. How much?
Microsoft Rep:
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. Sign this NDA instead.
I'm not trying to be a rabid anti-Microsoft here. They are in business, and they are entitled to make money from their work. From a legal standpoint, they have acted illegally, and were told to behave better. Are they really behaving better?
Another point
If they acted illegally, and to make up for that illegal behaviour, they had to level the playing field up a bit. Linux (along with apple) is one of two main competitors. So they release the protocol specs under a license that effectively prohibits its use in Linux. Hmmm.
Just another viewpoint. I'm not here to karma whore, but it does make you think.
Re:And the problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
No no no no no. This is a common misunderstanding. No company should be entitled to anything. You make money if people decide to buy your product.
Although, I guess if you are abusing a monoopoly such that people haven't a choice, you are sort of entitled. Either way, its a problem.
NDA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NDA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NDA? (Score:5, Insightful)
To call the Justice Department idiots presumes that they actually *want* any remedies for Microsoft and their purpose is being thwarted. Remember we had a regime change through this, and the new regime change seems to wish the whole thing would just go away. This little twist is not misaligned with the new goals.
Communication protocols (Score:3, Funny)
It's probably so ugly that they are ashemed to show it.
further reading (Score:2, Funny)
It's mostly a lot of mindless crap, though.
Show billg the Money! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it really in M$'s interest to keep this stuff proprietary?
Obviously they think it is, unless the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing... But would they really lose marketshare by letting other OSs 'hookup' to windows boxs and vice-versa? -It seems it only serves to make shops that are unix-based be more accepting of windows boxes ... not the other way around.
Anyone have insight on this?
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of good arguments for keeping things open, but there do exist some fairly plausible business reasons against it.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same for the RIAA and P2P... even if they agreed that P2P isn't devastating for their business (and they secretly might), it's still a huge issue of control. They want to control the distribution channels, and channel as much of the profits towards them as possible.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft could make there systems not play with any others, they would. THis would make it so that you have to go 100% MS. If you wanted to switched you couldn't do it peicemeal, because the new stuff would be totally isolated. It would be an all or none proposistion. Much harder than: Switch a few print servers, eventually switch all servers(except those neccessary for Windows network), switch a few desktops, etc. Linux has a foothold in servers because servers generally deal with much more standardized protocols. Having File and Print Sharing in Linux makes it much easier for shops to try linux.
This is not what MS wants, they want it to be impossible to try or switch to anything else. What do you think the point of proprietary binary file types are?
So, I found a way... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So, I found a way... (Score:3, Interesting)
Would it be illegal in any way for me to pay a juvenile to do this? Is it technically against the law for a juvenile to do this? If it is, then it would be illegal for me to pay them to break the law, I'm sure. IANAL (obviously); can anyone who is comment?
An NDA Just to get the terms?? (Score:2)
Every day I use Samba I feel better and better.
Since when? (Score:2, Informative)
Pecunia non olet. (Score:5, Interesting)
But in this political climate, such government action is highly unlikely. In fact, the opposite has been happening: Standard oil was broken up a nearly a century ago, and now its old pieces are reassembling themselves. There does not seem a merger that the F.T.C. does not love.
The biggest mistake that Microsoft has made was ignoring politics for such a long time. Before this case, its net political contribution to either party were nearly nil. As soon as the first writs started to come in, so did money start to pour from Redmond to Washington, now contributions to both parties are in the millions, and Federal prosecutors have become far less eager.
Perhaps I am a pessimist, but here is my prediction as to the outcome of all these legal actions: appeals, followed by more appeals, followed by earnest wrist slapping.
But there is a bright side: Microsoft vision of the P.C. as a direct conduit between it and its customers' wallets will do more to break up its stranglehold than all the judges on the bench.
One way around... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, we couldn't do anything with the data, since:Damn.
Jouster
Re:One way around... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, property laws vary from state to state, so CWYLL (Check With Your Local Lawyer).
Jouster
Workarounds (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, a commercial entity or entities (e.g. Sun, IBM) with an interest in promoting free software competition to Microsoft could finance an operation which would use the Microsoft specs to put together a compliance suite. Since a great deal of the effort in reverse-engineering protocols lies in making sure that your tests are complete, a black-box compliance suite -- even though not itself free -- would dramatically ease the process of reverse-engineering the specs themselves.
As a dandy side-effect, the suite would also show up where Microsoft doesn't comply with their own specs, which detail might be of interest to the public and the Court.
Re:Workarounds (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the point. The question is whether Microsoft is living up to their so-called voluntary compliance with the proposed DOS settlement.
Anyway, the Samba team know this protocol better than Microsoft does at this point, so there's no possible argument for making use of information Microsoft has not placed unambiguously in the public domain. That would just create an opportunity for Microsoft to attack the Samba project legally, which they would no doubt love to do.
This turn of events is worth far more in terms of demonstrating to Judge Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft is not now abiding by the terms of the DOJ settlement, and cannot be expected to in the future.
ReactOS, Samba and WINE (Score:5, Insightful)
More then EVER the FreeSoftware/Linux Nutz need to start supporting WINE/Mingw/ReactOS and Samba so we can compeate with M$ before they gain more control with DRM/Palladium.
I guess we should just be happy
No! Really? (Score:5, Funny)
This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.
The industry standard... as a monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
To summarize...
In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.
We're going to prevent this information from becoming usefull...
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler called the protocol process straightforward. He said nondisclosure agreements are common in the industry...
Everybody does this...
The protocols are vital for competitors since Windows runs on about 90 percent of desktop computers..
Of course... We are everybody!
Maybe we are on the wrong way? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it would be a good thing to concentrate on developing software that educates MS-Products to use standard-protocols to communicate with servers?
E.g. where is the advantage in making a server talk MS-Speak instead of making a MS-Client talking lingua franca instead?
I'm just wondering.
k2r
Re:Maybe we are on the wrong way? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are commercially client/server programms available from third parties. Considering this it should be a no brainer to create a opensource client program. That way you can still use that linux fileserver without getting linux to understand windows protocol just like you suggest.
So what is the catch? Having to install client software on every freaking windows client in the network and having to maintain it. With samba it is easy to introduce a linux/unix in a windows shops since they will notice no change, apart from uptime, maintenance costs, performace etc etc etc.
Of course you might ask youreselve why it is not possible to simply mount NFS shares from windows standard given that it is such a common standard. I am sure the answer will come to you. :P
GPL misunderstood again (Score:5, Informative)
This statement is flat wrong. There is nothing in the GPL which prohibits charging for GPL'ed software. The point of the GPL is that source must be made available for at-cost prices (postage, etc), and that source for any derivative product must be made similarly available. It only says that source must be made available at cost if the buyer asks for it. A lot of times, they don't ask. And a lot of times, they're willing to pay big $$ for a nice, installable binary distribution on CD. The GPL also says explicitly that "you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee". This is exactly what Red Hat does.
In summary, GPL is hardly the same as 'gratis'. It is, OTOH, a good try for 'libre'. Someone please beat these media guys with a cluestick.
Re:GPL misunderstood again (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should they bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
The holy grail for them is compliance that allows to keep the playing field closed while appearing open. Sounds crazy and circular, but that really is what this entire thing is about.
Any combination of rules that stops short of a direct order can and will be exploited to their advantage. They have size and smarts enough to know that. For them this whole thing is just an annoying process that they must work through so they can get back to real business.
I propose that this works in a similar fashion to how the whole copy protection thing works today. If you can legislate it, they can exploit it. Hah!
Nothing will change unless clear and direct action with accountability is taken...
It's all a shell game, nothing to see, move on. (Sorry Jeremy, you are right, but have no real backing.)
Charging for protocol specs??? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the settlement to have any teeth with respect to protocols, MS will have to be forced to release at least a few protocols to public standards bodies, and any protocol they release will have to be released without fee, without NDA, without any way for MS to know who is looking at the specs. There needs to be very specific wording that disallows ANY restriction. If the agreement allows MS to tell me I can't use a MS protocol to connect a Mac to a Palm through a proxy running on a Sun box using Python and Java, then the wording IMHO is off.
That said, I just couldn't leave the following nonsense alone...
From the article:
This is just FUD. When are people going to realize that the GPL states specifically that GPL'd software CAN BE SOLD? The artical, in one breath, says Red Hat sells a version of Linux, and in another spews the above. Sheesh.
Thwarting the spirit of the judgement (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if the judge's orders are so vague that it allows for this crap, then perhaps it should be clarified. A request to the judge should be made citing this specific instance. I can't imagine a judge having his orders screwed with will take it all lightly and will probably render corrective orders more harshly.
Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue. Even Microsoft understands they can sell GPL-covered software [microsoft.com] (as they have been doing for quite some time now). The GNU GPL (erroneously referred to as "the General Public License" above) does not "[bar] any payment"; it can be okay to sell Free Software [gnu.org] including GNU GPL-covered software. In fact, in the essay I just linked to it is encouraged that one get as much money as one can for distributing Free Software.
One element that makes payment impossible for Free Software developers are licenses that require per-seat payments. When you have the freedom to share the software freely you can't keep track of who gets a copy. When you have the freedom to modify the software tracking systems built into the software can (and probably will) be removed. Free Software licenses grant you the freedoms to share and modify the software under that license.
Re:Washington Post gets the GPL wrong (surprise!) (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps not surprisingly, the mainstream press gets salient details wrong. The last sentence of the above paragraph is simply untrue.
In this context it is true. The GPL prevents an open source developer charging Microsoft's royalty to their users as that would be a restriction on the distribution.
In other words, the GPL bars payments to third parties in these sort of cases.
TWW
"Bars any payment" NOT FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not FUD. I've read a few posts that say it is, and I must admit it looked like it to me at first. This is really a good idea on Microsoft's part. If they want to keep any proprietory information away from free software developers all they need do is demand a royalty be paid on every distribution of a product that uses that information. Think about it. You want to download Xine with support for the new Windows Media Player format? Ok, Microsoft is more than willing to supply the Xine folks with the specification for the new format, but they demand a royalty on each distribution of Xine. So, you, the user, are required to pay a royalty, to Microsoft, for your copy of Xine. This is pretty standard for non-free-software right? Well the GPL will not permit the Xine folks to make this requirement of you!
Good show Microsoft, very evil.
I hope the judge read my submission (Score:5, Interesting)
I also tackled the issues of cost (e.g. subscription fees) and protocol patents.
Hmmm. It seems that I was right to be worried.
Paul.
Courts do get it eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft, ever incorrigible, can't seem to help itself, and this is A REAL GOOD THING. I would rather the insufficiency of the settlement be realized in a practical and tangible manner before, and not after, the judge reaches her decision -- when there is still time for her to change her mind.
It is stuff like this that turned Judge Jackson into a Microsoft-hater, and indeed, it will have a similar impact on the present judge. However unlikely it was that she might reject the positions of both parties and ask for briefings on structural relief -- conduct such as this makes that one step more likely to happen.
For those hoping that she will throw the book at Microsoft, however she does it, this kind of news is the best thing that could happen. The Judge has the power now -- and Microsoft's bad acting is amazingly short-sighted.
I love when my opponents overreach visibly. It always helps me in the end.
Re:Not fair! (Score:5, Insightful)
(BTW I said abusive because that was what was found, just having a monopoly isn't unlawful)
Re:Not fair! (Score:5, Insightful)
The question here is how much Microsoft has to disclose. Do they have to make this information available to all developers, or only to some developers? What if Microsoft only made the information available to ONE other company? Is that good enough? Where do you draw the line? The problem is that the Justice Department's proposed settlement doesn't draw the line -- it lets Microsoft draw the line! Now we see where they've drawn it: Somewhere just inside that closed door over there.
Re:Not fair! (Score:3, Informative)
You are wrong. The Court hasn't said anything about these protocols. They are merely part of the proposed settlement which the court has not ruled upon yet.
Re:Not fair! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course and it was M$'s choice to publish them as part of their settlement with the DOJ .... it's the throwing up of silly barriers to make those settlements meaningless that people are complaining about
Re:Obfuscation? (Score:5, Interesting)
API's are *not* protocols. I don't care what their API's are, I don't program under Win32.
I care what bytes come out from and go into the *network* from a Windows computer as a protocol description.
You know, that rather thick blue piece of string hanging out the back of your computer
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
Re:Obfuscation? (Score:3, Interesting)
their *internal* protocols are
Thanks,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
No, it is not (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL does not prohibit payment, it prohibits *prohibiting* giving it away for free. A subtle difference that appears to be beyond the Post's writer. Said writer should expect to find a *very* full inbox tommorow.
KFG
Re:Is this true? (Score:5, Informative)
To gain an understanding of these issues, you can read the GPL [gnu.org] itself (compared to a EULA its quite easy to grok). If you need clarification, you can read the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].
~Phillip
Re:2nd try's a charm (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! You can't be Jeremy Allison! He's not a singing programmer!
Slashdot makes me stupid. I apologize.