Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
The Microsoft settlement
Tempting as it may be to pass over the final judgement in the Microsoft
case as not being of interest to Linux users, the truth of the matter is
that there are a couple of things worth saying. Even though this
settlement looks an awful lot like "business as usual."
Free software advocates had hoped, for a while, that the settlement would at least require the opening of formats and protocols. Imagine the great things the Samba team could do if it had to spend less time reverse engineering everything. In the end, the final settlement offers nothing of value in this regard. Consider:
The most interesting provision with regard to licensing, though, may well be this one:
No provision of this Final Judgment shall... Require Microsoft to
document, disclose or license to third parties: (a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications
Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise the security of
a particular installation or group of installations of anti-piracy,
anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management,
encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API,
interface or other information related to any Microsoft product if
lawfully directed not to do so by a governmental agency of
competent jurisdiction.
As has been pointed out by others, the "security" argument could be used to lock up just about anything that Microsoft does not want to release. And why, exactly, does the U.S. government reserve to itself the right to suppress the release of API and protocol information? One assumes that somebody has something in mind here. After five years, the entire settlement goes away. The bottom line is that this decree is not going to help the free software community to any great extent. But, then, it never really was going to. Attacking Microsoft is not a useful goal for the free software community; our purpose is to create and distribute the best free software we can. And, for those who wish to see Microsoft in discomfort, it is worth noting that free software has already caused the company much worry. Microsoft's planned takeover of the server space has been thwarted, and the company's grip on other computing markets, while still firm, just does not look as invulnerable as it once did. Editors, compilers, and the free software development process may yet prove to be the most effective weapon against software monopolies. (See also: yet another leaked Microsoft memo, duly marked up by Eric Raymond. This one is a survey of opinions toward Linux. "Closing, those who are familiar with OSS and Linux are favorably predisposed towards them. Linking this work with other on-point research, we can assume that in the majority of cases this reported 'favorability' is more emotional than it is rational.") (Log in to post comments)
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 7, 2002 7:28 UTC (Thu) by jarto (subscriber, #3268) [Link] I've read a statement by the Samba team concerning these APIs. They basically said that they don't need the documentation. Apparently the documentation wouldn't be accurate or updated.Funnily enough, reverese-engineering the protocol has probably made Samba better. When it's harder, you have to research it better and you develop deeper knowledge. I bet the Samba team knows way more about the SMB protocol than Microsoft engineers.
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 7, 2002 9:13 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] Sure. But aren't you sort of ignoring the point that M$ can _practically_ kill Samba in a few weeks by rolling a new SMB format out in service packs and/or mandatory "critical" patches? At the very least this would force the Samba team to start reverse-engineering everything all over again.The Seattlement stinks of corruption. I wonder how long it will be before CKK gets a lucrative placement in the new US Government and/or a non-executive seat on the M$ board.
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 8, 2002 21:58 UTC (Fri) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] But aren't you sort of ignoring the point that M$ can _practically_ kill Samba in a few weeks by rolling a new SMB format out in service packs and/or mandatory "critical" patches? No they can't. They have inertia against them. Lots of customers have WinXP and Win98 on the same network. By breaking Samba you break Win98 and NT4 and so forth. They would have to try quite hard to break the one without breaking the others. Certainly Microsoft is moving away from their legacy networking based on NetBIOS. Windows 2000 can do SMB file/print sharing in "NetBIOS-less" mode, using port 445 instead of port 139; the machine then uses DNS instead of NetBIOS for name resolution. Print sharing can be done without SMB at all, using the Internet Printing Protocol (port 631) which is based on HTTP. Look for upcoming releases of Windows to start using alternative file sharing mechanisms - perhaps NFSv4 or WebDAV. So, eventually, as this trend continues, Samba will become less and less relevant - not because Linux replaces Windows on everyone's desktop (although that may happen) but because newer Microsoft OSes have less and less reliance on legacy NetBIOS / SMB networking.
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 7, 2002 17:35 UTC (Thu) by kendall (guest, #3465) [Link] I think free software advocates should be less concerned about how settlement details might have helped free software or hurt Microsoft. The real news here, in my view, is that the settlement makes a complete mockery of US antitrust law, principle, and enforcement. It's the equivalent of Bill Gates, adjudicated monopolist, doing a victory dance over the grave of US antitrust law. I never thought hurting Microsoft was really going to help Linux; I don't think Linux needs much help. If it never has any more big wins -- and who believes that? -- it's one of the stunning techno-social successes of all time. However, it would have been good for everyone involved in the US economy for antitrust law to have been affirmed with some real provision and punitive measures. Part and parcel, alas, of the big corporate giveaway which continues apace.
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 11, 2002 20:02 UTC (Mon) by gswoods (guest, #37) [Link] I'm not sure I agree that punishing Microsoft (and "affirming US anti-trust law")would really have been a great thing, for two reasons. First, anti-trust laws are designed to prevent multiple companies from suppressing competition through collusion. That doesn't really apply here. Second, the only thing I can think of that would be worse than Microsoft dominating the software industry would be the US Government trying to do so. These are the same ones that are currently beholden to the RIAA and who put Dmitry Sklyarov in jail. These are the ones that we want to depend on to beat Microsoft for us? No way! Microsoft will be beaten when, and only when, there are alternatives to their products that are better and/or cheaper. Once that happens, it will only be a matter of time. Even here, more people are starting to look at Linux and other open source OS's because they are getting sick of M$'s heavy-handed licensing practices. M$ will eventually collapse under its own weight, and as long as we can keep the government from screwing things up, the software world will be better for it.
The Microsoft settlement Posted Nov 12, 2002 15:38 UTC (Tue) by mwilck (guest, #1966) [Link] I am not a lawyer but I think anti-trust law also has the purpose of preventing monopolies, and Microsoft is closer to having a world-wide monopoly than any company ever was. To my somewhat naive understanding, social regulations should prevent monopolies in order to preserve the driving force of market economy - competition - even if the almost-monopolist company does not commit openly illegal actions.I also don't subscribe to your second point. Especially the paragraph about the government "lawfully directing" Microsoft not to disclose certain information suggests that U.S. government and Microsoft are already cooperating, or at least intending to do so. If the U.S. government really wanted to dominate the software industry, it would certainly be harder for them if there were a number of strong companies rather than a single dominating one. Thus I agree with kendall that the settlement is a disaster for anti-trust legislation. And anti-monopolist social regulations in general, I might add. Whether it's bad for Linux and open source remains to be seen. In any case it is likely that Microsoft will feel encouraged to act more agressively than they did while the trial was still pending.
|
|||||||||||