Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Wow let's see how much more red tape we can throw at the situation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
The same as SCO's.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
...developers should consider giving up H2O. It doesn't matter if its
"common property". If Microsoft has something to do with it, or has
ever had anything to do with it, or might ever want to have something to do with
it some day...
Stay away. You've been warned.
Come to think of it, that goes for customers too.
Please Don't Feed the Energy Coroporation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT |
My thinking is that if 'Lindows' sounds too close to 'Windows'
then CPL sounds too close to GPL.
Just a thought.
I'll be giving Eban a call this afternoon to get his take.
Nick
---
Not an Attorney.
Views expressed are my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my
employer or its affiliates. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT |
First of all IANAL so I may be completely mis-interpreting this... also I am not
defending MS. So that said...
The way I understood "The CPL FAQ, question number 12" is that the
original owner of the CPL software (I don't think it refers to MS here, I think
it refers to someone who builds a module and links it with CPL software and then
distributes this) is the only one who can change the license of his software.
This seems on par with the GPL, only the original author of a part of the
software can change the way it is licensed since he alone owns the copyright to
it.
So the original author of a CPL licensed work could potentially dual license. I
may be missing some details in the legalese so correct me if I'm wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT |
Microsoft has spent years bashing the very concept of open source yet Microsoft
is slowly moving towards open sourcing their products and Microsoft has relied
upon open source internally.
This CPL thing from Microsoft when looking at the big picture can be beneficial
to open source since it counters Microsoft's own FUD. Consider how Microsoft
first did "shared source," which showed code to some people and now
Microsoft is revealing code to even more people with CPL.
I wouldn't trust Microsoft any further than I could throw them, but their own
actions of showing code to others merely serves to demonstrate that showing code
is good despite the FUD they and their puppets put out.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maco on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Once some has released something under CPL, are they then allowed to change the
license to be more restrictive?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- CPL Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- CPL Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- CPL Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- CPL Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT |
in which he invents "proprietary software":
gateswhine
Or drop "Bill Gates" and "letter" into Google. It is one of the founding
documents of capitalism, and is what he will be known for 50 years from now,
when MS is dust. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT |
To the rest of the world, it's CPL. But to Microsoft, it's Microsoft Public
License (MPL). They just set the stage for them to "sue your arse to
extintion" at a later time.
Microsoft does not wake up one day and says "I am going to be a nice guy
from this day forward."
"Trust not what Microsoft can do for you, but watch what Microsft will do
to you"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
You state that MS will use the CPL. And state that the CPL and GPL are not
compatible. And then you ask if we trust Microsoft to use the CPL or only the
GPL. I don't trust them either way, but I'm more comfortable with the CPL
because it has the additional patent terms. That would seem to only protect us
more than the statement about patents in the GPL. What am I missing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
Then I asked myself, why do companies patent things? Is it because they
intend to share freely with others?
That's exactly what the patent laws
were intended to accomplish. "In exchange for making your idea public, we will
grant you limited exclusive rights to it, so people can't use your disclosure to
get competing products to market sooner." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Clay on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
Common Public License
Version 1.0
You gotta hand it to them, by throwing at least one little
thing in they get to say, "oh no we totally understand open source, in fact we
have released products under open source."
political trojan hourse if you
ask me. Make IE open source then everyone will believe you
care.
Clay
--- ---------------------------
newObjectivity, Inc. supports the destruction
of all software patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sander on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
It shouldn't surprise anyone here that MS is claiming credit for something they
didn't directly create, but it's a Microsoft employee releasing his sources
under the CPL not Microsoft itself. Atleast if you believe what he writes on his
blog, about wanting to show Microsoft the benefits of real
opensource.
Now this could all be a PR campaign, as he himself writes on
his blog there are people at Microsoft "working to improve Microsoft’s
relationship with the Open Source community". But if it really is 100% true the
guy that wrote this program and released it under the CPL is just a good guy
working at an evil company.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt
..
--- I tried to ping SCO's IP in Linux, but it returned no
route to host ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
My guess it will only be used for code that:
1) MS doesn't care about
2) Has someother hold over
3) Will allow them to project a "part of the team" image
4) Can be used to undermine other OSS projects, especially
those Linux related
I don't trust MS one bit.
Rick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
The GPL creates social capital by making it possible for developers to share
software and giving some minimal guarantees that community norms will be
followed, when legal remedies are pursued by persons of normal means.
(1) Microsoft is not a corporation with normal means or equal standing to
everyone else either in the polity or the courts. (2) Their reputation and
actions give ample warrant for suspicion.
However, even with a letter of introduction from Richard Stallman himself *and*
the GPL instead of the CPL I still wouldn't trust Microsoft.
There are some things, like a damaged reputation, the GPL just can't fix.
"Consider the Source".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: davidbakody on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
I agree with you in regard to Sun eventually pulling an SCO with OpenOffice. I
think it will happen, what is open to debate is the actual strategy the Axis
Powers (Microsoft/SCO/Sun) will deploy and the timing of the conflict.
I believe far too many people underestimate what a ruthless organization
Microsoft is and the depths they will go to destroy all competition. It's also
obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that Sun is now little more than a tool
for Microsoft. What sort of innovation has come out of Sun in recent years?
Java? Is anyone really excited about their products, leadership, or direction?
It's another SCO waiting to happen, except it has more money and a leader with a
better sense of humor. If McBride pisses off people who treasure common sense,
just wait, because McNealy has 100 times the bite that McBride could ever dream
of having.
Here's just one way the Axis might proceed...
Donate OpenOffice under the GPL and encourage widespread adoption. Make a few
Linux friends along the way. It can't hurt, because you need them to get it
(OpenOffice) deployed into as many seats as possible.
Imagine a site with a 70,000 OpenOffice seats (like in Spain) being told they
better pay-up or face litigation for using Sun's "IP".
What IP? The IP in OpenOffice.
But it was released under the GPL!
Right, and a company called Caldera/SCO sold an entire Linux distribution under
the GPL and it didn't stop them from suing. Heck, Caldera/SCO made
contributions to the Linux kernel under the GPL and later turned around and sued
end users anyway - in some cases using the very contributions it made under the
GPL as the evidence supporting its claims of infringment!
Sun is a lot smarter than SCO, so the needle to look for in the haystack is the
instrument of the claim it will seek to make (eventually) against users of
OpenOffice. It's that needle that some of us are trying to find, or at least
figure out, so it can be remedied ahead of time or at least exposed.
Some might say no such needle exists nor will it ever exist. I certainly lean
in that direction - as it's probably more likely something akin to bullet with
the name Microsoft written on it and a gun manufactured by Sun Microsystems.
Whatever happens - Sun is not our friend and one would be wise to avoid them
like avoiding a heart attack in Iraq.
How many times have we regretted taking off our tinfoil hats only to find that
truth was stranger than fiction!? Microsoft has been exposed time after time as
a company that is more than willing to break laws, engage in conspiracy, and do
whatever it takes to KILL all competitors, even if that means laying in bed with
a company like Sun for an evening.
Linux, OpenOffice, and the open-source movement in general are a HUGE threat to
Microsoft and likewise Sun. Every move they make should be seen as part of plan
to kill Linux and open source.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp
This covers the office xml schemas, is a patent license,
and is expressly not gpl compatible, as well as claiming
that a patent can control mear "access" to content (field
of use) rather than the underlying data structure itself.
I do also recall the patent on XML schemas that included
embedded scripting, and I wonder if WiX includes that
methodology (it seemed related to software installation)
and under what terms that schema is being licensed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grayhawk on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
M$ won't be able to take on the OpenOffice/StarOffice format with its patents
due to prior art. OpenOffice/StarOffice storage format has been around long
before even Sun bought StarOffice from the German company who was the original
developer.
Note the date of purchase on the article.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4937
There is lots of prior art there which would bode ill for M$ should they try to
go up against OpenOffice/StarOffice.
---
All ships are safe in a harbour but that is not where they were meant to be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No Worry...? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Steve on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
Sure. I would gladly use any code they chose to release under
the "modified
BSD" license or the X11 license.
I would gladly use any code they
released under the LGPL.
There are probably other FOSS licenses under
the terms of
which I would be willing to use code from Microsoft. I'm not very
familiar with the CPL specifically.
By "use" here, I mean "incorporate
the source code into
another project or make a derivative work and then
distribute the
results." If one asks the question "use" to mean simply "run the
binary", then I would be willing to run it regardless of the FOSS
license
chosen. --- IAALBIANYL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
This article tries to tie together two unrelated things and make it appear as
something sinister is going on. I want to clear up some misconceptions. Firstly,
the "XML Patent" is for a specific XML application/format/schema
(something to do with word processing formats). It is not a patent on XML
itself, and there's no such thing as "Microsoft XML". It's important
to distinguish between XML applications (formats based upon XML, such as XHTML,
RSS and XUL) and the XML specification itself.
WiX has nothing to do with that patented XML application. It's a set of tools to
create windows installer packages (*.msi files) from a XML document using a
TOTALLY DIFFERENT xml schema.
While it is very possible that Microsoft someday will attack Openoffice using
various patents and other legal means, it is totally unrelated to WiX and the
CPL. Item 12 in the CPL faq is just common sense, the GPL is not different in
this regard. Item 19 shows the CPL to be more BSD-like than the GPL, but it does
not reveal any sinister motives from Microsofts part. Remember, the reason
proprietary software companies like the BSD license over GPL is that it enables
them to embed the work of others in their otherwise closed-source applications.
In this case however, they are the original authors, so what do they have to
gain?
Furthermore, this may not even be the first thing released under an opensource
license from Microsoft. All code from their http://asp.net/ site (including a
nifty little webserver called Cassini) is available under the "Asp.net
shared source license" (contrary to common belief, "shared
source" is not a single license, but rather a family of licenses with
different restrictions). This particular license is very open. I emailed OSI
asking them about this particular license and wheter it could be classified as
an open source license, but so far I have recieved no reply.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mdchaney on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
I've been out of Windows development for years, but here's my take on it.
Up until recently, Microsoft was pushing and using InstallShield. A trial
version came with Visual Studio. Most MS software was also installed via
InstallShield (that's software that I use, which admittedly isn't much).
Microsoft doesn't like to use other people's stuff, at least not long term. My
feeling is that that they're simply trying to kill off the InstallShield people,
maybe after a failed buyout attempt. I don't know.
This isn't the first time a company has used open source to try to harm a
competitor. Think of Sun spending $250M on StarOffice and GPL'ing it. Or SAP
buying Adabas and GPL'ing it.
From MS' point of view, this makes complete sense. They don't compete on the
installer; they've been pushing someone else's software. Giving this away
simply cannot harm them in any way. It can destroy a competitor, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
Just for a second there, I thought the headline was:
Microsoft Wishes to Taunt Developers With Its Code[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
Steven Vaughan-Nichols offers an interpretation of the M$ move. It's another
example of "embrace and extend."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1562330,00.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Smith on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
ZDNet has of late been a FUD amplifier for MS so I was more than a little
surprised to find this article titled
The Spyware That Loved Me
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5187149.html
It details one users terrible experiences with spyware infestations on a Windows
environment.
The article is a timely reminder of why we should not only distrust MS the
company but also avoid their products like the plague[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Any licence such as this will, i am sure, be popular with GPL's major critics.
I dont have a major problem with it and it is more free than closed source is.
I still think the GPL is better. The only people who will be tempted by
releasing code in CPL over GPL, are those companies that develop proprietry code
as their main business.
This can only be good news as it proves how concerned microsoft is about the
GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
Many, including myself, have predicted patents as the way Microsoft (and now
with partner Sun) will attack in any way possible to protect its user base,
thereby forcing use of its products, proprietary data formats and other access
methods.
The subject patent clearly is intended to exclude non-licensees from converting
Microsoft Office files to AND from competing office suites such as AbiWord*,
OpenOffice.org, etc.
IMHO, we should object to this patent with the highest priority and urgency, and
establish a fund to pursue this approach to creating USER LOCK IN around the
world and in every media.
A convicted monopolist should NOT be allowed to hold patents anywhere after
their conviction. Using patents as a means to continue the monopoly has now been
exercised by Microsoft. They have done so in a way that allows them to say that
this is not their intent, and they will so state.
Microsoft will claim that the GPL should be altered so that interface licenses
can be purchased. They will raise havock in every way they can, to control the
documents created by the public, so that the creator cannot escape paying
Microsoft a fee to access their own intellectual creations!
This violates the intent of monopoly convictions accessed against Microsoft so
far. As much as I expected this to happen, I am still incredulous at the gaul of
Bill Gates.
Gaul as in captured territories of the Roman Empire, then France and Italy,
today meaning Microsoft is determined to conquer the world.
-----
*AbiWord 'taint a complete office suite, but 'tis a valid example of GPL
GNU/Linux products under attack.
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Probably not - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 10:36 AM EDT
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
The first thing that popped into my mind was the New Zealand
patent [M$] got on XML...
Is there no prior art on XML
that could be used to invalidate this patent?
I have observed several times
in the past where companies would patent something they knew was being made part
of a standard, lay low for several years until the standard was well
established, then spring their patent on those making use of it, either
demanding royalties or suing for infringement. GIF compression was one,
somebody had a patent on LZW compression as I recall, which GIF uses. Another
was Rambus, which had patents on certain RAM technologies, for which they
demanded licensing and royalties, and sued one or more RAM manufacturers for
refusing to take a license.
I find myself wondering if M$ is planning
on pulling a similar ploy.
--- What goes around comes around, and it grows
as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
I think question 19 is the key. What is and isnt derivative work of the Program?
what can and cant i do?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: meat straw on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
This is creepy given the situation is so surreal, it mirrors part of an episode
from The Simpsons.
Homer creates a dummy company with an impressingly pseudo-technical name -- this
company, which does not provide any product or service, is run out of the
Simpsons' kitchen.
Eventually, Bill Gates shows up, and after a brief dialog of how Bill was
planning on trying to compete with Homer's co. (Bill couldn't figure out
exactly what the company did) offers to "buy out" Homer's company.
"Okay, Boys, buy him out," Bill says, while smiling.
The "Boys", two rather brutish looking men, proceed to smash
everything in the kitchen, including the pencil-holder made out of a stick of
butter.
Bill then informs Homer that he didn't get to where he he is now buy actually
paying for other peoples' stuff.
This coming from an animated sitcom. I have the chills.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nivuahc on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:03 PM EDT |
Does this mean that Micro$oft will now offer an indemnification program in
case I get sued for using an application built on their WiX
code?
Everyone knows that those awful sourceforge geeks have no way
of keeping someone elses precious IP out of their
products.
Right?
--- My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He
just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey! Look at that chicken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: penguin_roar on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Firstly the patent on XML is a thing to debate infinitum since xml stands for a
very broad concept. The patent covers a fairly thin slice of whats under the xml
umbrella.
That said i htink its best to avoid anything coming from MS and start developing
fresh things instead of mimicing MS. Look at SAMBA and how they have managed to
implement MS own protocol better than MS. I think open source could come up with
better novel things than SMB.
All in all i get nervous when open source projects put themselves infront of the
barrel volontarily when there are better ways to do things than just mimic MS.
Mono is one of my biggest fears and i thank god that linux has its fair amunt of
desktops should MS decide to enforce its patents on .Net
---
A computer is much more.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
<paranoia>
If a company could somehow obtain a patent that controlled
the guided installation of a software package by means of
XML it could result in that company controlling all kinds
of programmed installation.
</paranoia>
Take for instance, the installation of a cell-phone ring tone. This trivial
application is the basis of a world wide billion dollar business. If that
download is mediated by XML then a company with a suitable patent could demand
it's percentage.
Note how this would not be controlled by any special monopoly conciderations -
Microso^h^h^h^h^h^h the company would not be IN the ringtone business, just
receiving it's legally entitled percentage...
By making the source "open" it's very difficult for anybody to
demonstrate that they haven't seen the code. So the company gets you coming and
going,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
As I understand it, FSF likes the ideas in CPL, and plans to incorporate them
into GPL3. What is needed is to move all these licenses toward compatibility.
I would favor a GPL3 that would allow all parts of a derivative work of a GPL'd
program that are not directly copied from the GPL'd program to be licensed under
a modified CPL or Apache license and distributed in a collection licensed under
the GPL.
The modified CPL and Apache licenses would then have the same compatibility with
GPL3 that the modified BSD has with GPL2.
Are there any public drafts of GPL3 yet? I would love an opportunity to comment
on them. I answered my own question. See AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE at
http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html
Every time Microsoft gives something away, the purpose is to drive a competitor
out of business. This time, Microsoft might just be trying to claim to have
given away something that was actually given by an employee, but we should still
watch for what competitors might be harmed.
I am still worried about patent suits, and would like to understand exactly what
users get what free licenses to what patents.
As I frequently mention, I think that GPL3 should allow only those eligible to
join a FOSS copyright and patent pool to modify and distribute GPL3'd programs
and collections containing them (even mere aggregations). Further, a prior art
data base should be developed for all patented methodologies used in FOSS
programs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Galik on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
I think the important thing to think about is the patent. SCO is currently suing
IBM in the hope that some copied source will turn up in the discovery (as far as
I can tell). Here Microsoft could be doing a pre-seeding campaign. They let out
various periferal pieces of source using an OSI licence (like CPL) and seed them
with patents. Maybe the software they release will be to do with
interoperability (think SUN). Just when everyone in the industry is
interoperating nicely - wammo - everyone (including Linux?) who has used their
seeded code will be liable to pay for a license. Linux will then need to rip out
all the offending code and will thus cease to interoperate.
Hmmmm or maybe I just naturally mistrustful of MS...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
if the "XML Patent" is "for a specific XML
application/format/schema," (as
stated by another Groklaw reader), isn't this a case of an IP 'land grab' by MS?
in other words, they don't hold a patent on XML itself, but only on a process
of using XML--without knowing the details, they've basically defined a
schema, and a method of implementing and populating it, something that all
XML users do in their own way every day...how can this be patented?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
Please pardon my first post.
As a long time reader of Groklaw, I felt that I had to
reply to this article.
After reading the article and comments, this is the first
time I felt I was reading an article on Groklaw that was
treading real close to the line of credibility. A little
farther and we lose credibility. That worries me.
Let's look at this for what it is, a program of an MS
employee that takes an XML document and makes an MSI file
out of it. This is probably the start of an attempt to put
Installshield out of business, and make said attempt "open
source" so they can have a PR/FUD blitz on how MS is open
source friendly. Kill two birds with one stone.
I would not read any more into it than that. Would I turn
a blind eye towards this?
Not on your life.
Let's watch, see what happens, and most importantly, keep
countering the FUD. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darthaggie on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT |
Jason Matusow, Shared Source Initiative manager at Microsoft, said
the code was posted in public because the company felt that developers could
build more effective applications for Windows products with the actual elements
of the WiX package to work with, rather than using shareware that was
already available.
Among other things, Microsoft just
gutted the market for these shareware folks. Oh, wait, that's cutting off
their air suppy, isn't it? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Extracted from the CPL:
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the
Program.
So, does that mean the CPL is viral? That every modification of the CPL code
must be released under the CPL? What is the difference between this and the
GPL?
It looks like we may be out for a good laugh.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
If Microsoft releases other software under the CPL, we need to ask if Microsoft
tries to create an alternate commons tied by patents to Microsoft technology
with a license incompatible with GPL. They may try to attract programmers to
work for this alternate encumbered commons instead of FOSS. This will leave
fewer programmers to develop true free software. In this scenario they try to
turn FOSS developers into another kind of independent developper supporting
their so-called business ecosystem.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NemesisNL on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
I think that is a bit paranoid. If the patent MS is applying for could be used
to atach open office they would not get the patent. Open office is using this
method before MS applied for a patent. I think that would be considered prior
art. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Q12 is about source code forking under other terms.
Combinations of independently-created software that
merely work together through APIs are NOT derivative
works of software. RMS is totally right claiming
that "it makes no difference whether linking is
static or dynamic." Neither constitutes creation of
derivative work. The FSF's "GPL incompatibility"
claims are barred by the doctrines of coyright
misuse and first sale. As for the CPL... briefly,
- it's a contract;
- derivative works subject to CPL;
- grant of patent license (it is terminated if
recipient institutes patent litigation against
licensor or against any entity alleging that the
program infringes recipient's patent(s));
eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html#use_10
- redistribution of binaries under a different
license, even a commercial license, is permitted
(but the CPL'd source code must still be made
available under the CPL);
- Commercial distributors/contributors agree to
defend and indemnify every other contributor (this
obligation does not apply to any claims or losses
relating to any actual or alleged intellectual
property infringement);
- CPL'd code may be combined with other licensed
code without affecting the other code's license.
Lucent Public License and Eclipse Public License are
"CPL-derivative" licenses. Main differences:
- no patent termination clause (EPL)
- no obligation to make the source code available (LPL).
Hth.
regards,
alexander.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Jeez, this place is getting almost as paranoid as Slashdot.
Yeah, I know,
snip, snip. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
I submitted further discussion of this topic. If anyone wants to see it, it is
here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: henry007 on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
I think SCO is between the wall and the sword and has told Microsoft to start
helping them doing some FUD stuff to battle the linux community[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
"[Here's some more on the patent], where another question is
raised, namely whether the patent might be a way to make sure GPL applications
are unable to interoperate easily with Microsoft XML."
PJ,
regarding Microsoft's implementation of XML. I've had a chance to look and use
their implementation and I wouldn't necessarily deem it a danger.
My
reasoning is their implementation is not unlike the various compiler
implementations we see today with modern computer languages. For instance,
Microsoft has it's own C++ compiler, and so does GNU (gcc++?). IBM with jikes
and Sun's java. IBM isn't necessarily out to destroy Sun's version by creating
it's own implementation.
It's a matter of choice - you choose which
fits the job best. If one is chosen more than the others, than perhaps it should
be the leader. I don't know the statistics, but I believe gcc is a much more
popular compiler.
Now, as far as this XML patent relates to
browsers may be an entirely different story. In the past, companies that
produced browsers just added more code to deal with a new standard. From what I
understand, it they attempt to do that with MS's XML standard, they might be in
violation of Microsoft's patent.
As it stands now, I DO NOT get the
same response from various web site (ETrade, some news sites, etc.) with
Konqueror, Firefox, etc. as I do under Windows using Internet
Explorer.
So the short of it is - don't use Microsoft's Internet
Explorer! If you do, you will be perpuating the Microsoft standard to the
point of complete, utter browser chaos. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
I vaguely remember a case involving a famous athlete (boxer?). This person was
charged with posession of drugs but had a prescription. The judge said the
prescription was just an attempt to trick the law and found the guy guilty
anyway.
Could a judge say something like "I don't care if you have a patent, you
are comitting a restraint of trade"? Could a judge force a company to
provide interoperability?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tricking the law - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT
|
Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Greetings,
The purpose of my letter is to express my concern over Microsoft's introduction
of the so-called 'CPL' or 'Common Public License'.
It is in my opinion, an attempt to dilute the message of the GPL. I have had an
ex-employee of Microsoft recently inform me that he felt that Microsoft's hiring
of a former IBM patent valuation manager was a precept to their IP attack on
Linux.
Given the above, this effort to place open code seems to be a setup to the
prevailing line of, "See you honor, we're not after Linux, really! We even
release source code to the public."
In short, the CPL is Microsoft way to attempt to forego the scrutiny that
government regulators might otherwise attempt should they attack the GPL without
first having released such code.
It is my assertion that Microsoft may be on very sticky legal ground here.
If the 'Lindows' software sounds too close to 'Windows' then 'CPL' sounds too
close to 'GPL'.
Microsoft should be forced to rename the license to something less similar and
immediately cease and desist any and all actions associated with this license.
The CPL is not a commonly accepted license in the Open Source definition and any
attempt to confuse the marketplace should be stopped.
I'm most curious to see what Professor Moglen thinks about this issue.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Donovan
---
Not an Attorney.
Views expressed are my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my
employer or its affiliates. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 05:59 PM EDT |
OK so I don't think MicroSoft have suddenly been struck with sanity, or deeply
ingrained morals, but I never expect them to. This is overall good news, its not
a big bit of good news, and its not even big news, but it is good news. The
largest and most secretive code hoarders in the world have recognised that open
source is commercially a good thing!
If MicroSoft can see this it shoves a very large and rough pole into the nether
regions of the SCOs and MS apologist columnists of this world. I don't believe
it but I hope this will be the start of a trend, all the periphery of large
secret source software could be made open. This tends to stop many of the major
abuses that have gone on, you can't make subtle changes to spike the software
you have shown the world because the world will see.
In summary its not three cheers for M$, it may not even be two cheers but it
certainly seems to me to be at least one![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
What's with all the tinfoil hat crowd slagging the CPL here?
The CPL is a
free software license. There are hundreds of free software licenses. Your main
complaint against it seems to be that (1) Microsoft is releasing some code under
it, and (2) it isn't the same as this other free software license, the
GPL.
What's the big deal? IBM wrote the CPL and uses it for some serious
projects--including Eclipse. It's not a *bad*
license. Being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean anything other than, it's
incompatible with the GPL.
Microsoft can release their code under any
license they want, or under no license. They are hoping developers will have
improved/more consistent installers if they give away the code they use for
their own installers.
Watch for them to accuse Linux of making it too
difficult for desktop users to install things. ;)
But no mindless anti-CPL
rants, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
IANAL
This is not legal advice etc...
As I understand it, the CPL licenses the patents. So if the XML schemas used
within the software are patented by Microsoft, it is within the terms of the
license that you may use, copy, change, redistribute etc. the software covered
by the patents. As long as you stay within the terms of the license (just like
the GPL).
In other words, by accepting the terms of the license, you are free to use etc
the patented technology covered.
It is would be very difficult to later claim that you didn't intend to license
the software - whether covered by copyright or by patent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: garbage on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
PJ is right, given M$'s long history of rabidly aggressive
behavior & current underhanded slimey tricks how can one
be anything but cynical about this... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jarichte on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
I didn't see a post of this yet...
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1563242,00.asp
Read the article... no comment I can make will do it justice.
If you don't mind... I'd love to hear some of PJ's insightful commentary on this
one!
best regards
--andy richter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
XML is designed specifically to describe arbitrary file formats. So how can a
file format in XML possibly be considered a patentable invention? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: javajedi on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 07:18 PM EDT |
As a developer, I would be very very leary of downloading and looking at source
code from Microsoft for any purpose. While Microsoft may be simply trying a PR
move here as in "Look, we have some open source code out there too" as well as
using this to drive competing installation vendors out of the market, Looking at
Microsoft source code, IMHO is a very risky thing to do.
If I ever write a
method in any piece of open source software that has anything to do with parsing
some XML code and that method looks sufficiently close to the code they released
here under the CPL, and if Microsoft can show via IP addresses and such or via
my name on a comment in the code for WiX, then I have opened myself and the GPL
project I may be working on up to possible problems.
Let's think about this
software for a moment, it uses XML file formats to perform an installation of a
piece of software. As part of the basic functionaity there would be code for
parsing XML and writing XML. XML is becomming a relatively ubiquitous means
for storing everything from Data to Word Processing Documents to User
preferences. Just as an example, Open Office reads XML files, therefore it
needs to have methods within it to parse XML files. How many different ways can
you write a method to pull in and parse the Tags in an XML file against a
dtd?
Thanks Bill, but no thanks, If I need an installation routine I'll use
something already fully GPL compatible or write something myself without the
benefit of having seen your code base. --- The Matrix is real... but
i'm only visiting... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 08:49 PM EDT |
Having had the time to review the associated blog in excruciating detail, the
following URL might be of interest
to those looking for a GPL compatible alternative, and
the point of view of the developer of that alternative.
http://blogs.msdn.com/robmen/archive/2004/04/05/107709.aspx#107910[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: floyds_void on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
So Microsoft takes a single baby-step in the right direction and the Groklaw
herd blasts them for it ?? Mostly because they used IBM's CPL and not the
herd's beloved GPL ?? Gimme a break. Not all people that write open-source
software are that happy with the GPL anyways.
I've contributed a significant
amount of code for various open source projects under a number of open source licenses.
Including the GPL. But what I'm hearing here is that there is one and only one
true open source license, the GPL.
Can other open source licensed code use
GPL code ?? Absolutely. For example, the auto-magic code (autoheader, autoconf,
automake & friends) explicitly state that files generated by them (eg
configure and Makefile) fall under the project's license and not their's.
Another example is to ask permission from the GPL author if you can use their
code. If you are working on a worthwhile project he/she will almost always
grant you permission. Remember, it's usually the project creator that chooses
the license; most developer's don't really have a say, they can contribute if
they want or not.
The GPL derivative works theory has become a big problem,
esp regarding linux. This has been known for years. Companies competing in a
marginal market are not going to give away their hard owned intellectual
property in device driver code (think video, sound, etc). This world is not
going to be RMS's utopia anytime soon, and companies that spend a significant
amount of money developing a product are not going to give that product away
with no chance to recoup their expenses plus a reasonable amount for their
efforts. Without decent device drivers, linux will always be second-class in
this regard. Even companies that provide binary only device drivers for
download are going to be screwed because GPL zealots amongst the linux
developers have now provided the framework for these drivers to fail in the
future (by denying them access to gpl-only kernel routines).
Anyway, back to
topic. So Microsoft releases some code under an open-source license on
SourceForge no less. And thus they are slammed. I guess Microsoft can't do
anything without getting slammed by the zealot herds. Don't get me wrong, on
the slimeball scale, I think Microsoft ranks one notch above the Scientologists.
Which isn't saying much. I don't even think SCO ranks that low; at least they
are delusional and appear to think they own code thousands of others have
written.
So my main concern is that PJ has transformed from let the facts
speak for themselves to Microsoft has done something ostensibly right,
there must be something rotten. Conjecture in other words. I don't wish
this site to be condemned as another zealot site, and I don't appreciate the
herd mimicing the words of the mantra. Real programmers think for
themselves.
I've been in the IT business for over 25 years (back then it was
called DP). I've worked with IBMers when IBM had a worse reputation than
Microsoft does now. They were basically good people trying to do the right
thing. Sorta like Americans now regardless of the current Admistration's
excellent foreign policies. Companies are comprised of people and issues are
not black & white.
Flame on, I can take it. I would feel hopeful that I
can at least express an opinion.
Floyds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2004 @ 10:27 PM EDT |
I do some development work. What's the CPL mean to me? Is it basically the
same as the GPL but I'm also covered for using the related patent(s)? Are there
any other implications?
Once released they can't take it back, right? That goes for the license to use
their copyrighted material and their patents?
The only evil intent I can think of is if they released this under the CPL
hoping to get some people using it. Then they plan to "revoke" the
CPL on it, and then take people to court so that they can challenge open source
licenses in general. I can't imagine they think that would be successful..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
"...the code was posted in public because the company felt that developers
could build more effective applications for Windows products with the actual
elements of the WiX package to work with, rather than using shareware that
was already available."
There's the reson in italics. Windows
Installers are currently an area of Windows developement that M$ personally
doesn't dominate. So it's a standard bait-and-switch.
John. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 04:40 AM EDT |
I dunno why, but when I read the article, I skimmed over the letters and read
(in my mind): 'Microsoft wants to TAINT developers with its code'...
A curious thing, this mind we have :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 08:45 AM EDT |
Proprietary vendors guide us away from freedom [.: desire] to use, modify and
redistribute. The GPL should not provision patent inclusion in any revision.
Also, Sony is the most innovative proprietary computer vendor Ive seen in 15
years of computer use. Im sick of hearing about lousy proprietary vendors so you
probably are too although you may not be as worried about the future for this
company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
Microsoft recently announced that they were going to open up code for their new
XBOX OS and future versions of Windows. This is apparently to allow game
programmers to create games easier and better. Sounds like an attempt to keep
hold of the games market seeing as they are loosing business everywhere else.
Check www.pczone.co.uk for the full article.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: alisonken1 on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
And here's another article about TCO and MS/Linux from a couple of
guys I haven't heard of yet at SearchWin2000.com. ---
- Ken -
Slackin' since 1994 -
export IANAL=TRUE
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
Here is one Linux consultant's take on what Microsoft may really be planning.
It discusses MCPP and the potential impact on Free and Open Source software.
MCPP is what Sun just cross-licensed last week. What is MCPP? Here's a quote
from the article (link below)
"Microsoft's Communications Protocol
Program makes available for license by others more than 100 proprietary
protocols that were not previously available. These protocols can be used, in
accordance with the terms of the program’s license agreements, to develop a
broad range of server software products that use the protocols solely to provide
services to Windows desktop client operating systems or other compatible server
or client software."
If you care about FOSS, you should read
this:
http://www.penguinpros.com/Viewpoints/TollRoadAhead.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: haegarth on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Sounds great at first sight, doesn't it? MS is sharing source code with the
public!
Well, they've done it before, but not on this large scale basis, and not exactly
source code, but it's a scheme they've used for decades: Offer partnerships with
extremely good conditions including internal technical specs to other companies,
thus pulling them on their side, binding them with contracts, and when the other
company's products are considered beneficial to windows, steal the ideas and
crush them or buy them out (or if there's no benefit, simply crush them).
Makes me wonder why, besides for greed maybe, anyone would be still willing to
trust them...
I'm afraid they just altered their old scheme minimally, brushed it up with PR
and FUD, and try to slow down the Linux movement with it. Remember, MS's targets
have always been on the non-tech side, and CEO's and CTO's thrive on headlines,
not detailed knowledge.
That's what MS has done since the early 90's: provide the headlines, either on
their own behalf, or rather by using 'independent' media like the IT press. It
seems SCO has learned from that.
Technical people shouldn't even consider the offer, they write their own code
which will presumably be much better than anything MS has to show anyway.
Still, I hope for the day when even the least informed CEO has realized what's
wrong here...
---
Everytime I read SCOspeak I'm dumbfounded...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
Redflag ..yes for things are not always what they seems
what if on recent SUN and M$ settlement, a secret deal for M$ to have the option
to buy the IP right over for StarOffice whlist SUN still retain the right to
sell to it's own customer only ?
or
M$ already bought/included the IP in 2Bn dollars settlement and still gives SUN
the right to sell to it's own customer ?
as I think there are something amiss on this M$ and SUN deal, looking in the
frame where SCO currently is it's legal endevaour.
This could be M$ "Plan B"
My Thought
Wally
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nordic23 on Sunday, April 11 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
I am only a small time programer...very small time, however I have found that
linux is addictive. I have used it for years. It has endless tools and apps, and
comes with multiple compilers as needed. Its fun to use. I have only one thing
to say about this topic!
1. I trust Microsoft about as far as I can throw an elephant!
The GPL is in my opinion the greatest scheme ever created, anything else is not
good enough for me. I hope all programmers stay away from this code as if it was
the plague.
Nordic23[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sbungay on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
There is no doubt in my mind that Gates wants Linux dead and this is one way
to do it.
He can't release under the GPL because that would mean he would never be able
to make money off of it because he would be infringing on other's works if he
tried to take it all back in-house.
In the spring of 1982 he toyed with the idea of releasing DOS into the public
domain as a way to crush Digital Research's CP/M. This looks like a similar, if
someaht less risky, ploy.
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|