Discussion April 2002

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

45 participants
36 discussions

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by Joerg Schilling 11 Apr '02

11 Apr '02

>From: Alex Hudson <home(a)alexhudson.com> >> While I don't understand why close source cannot be prior art >Because it's not in the art. The art is Computer Science, not writing >Sun's OS. The gain of knowledge to Computer Science from Sun having done >it is zero. Sorry, this is nonsense! The gain of knowledge to Computer Science from Linux is zero - most of the "ideas" have been copied from Sun. If you were right, then Linux hackers would not be able copy Sun's ideas. In addition, you seem to regret the fact that there are many publically available white papers from Sun describing SunOS internals - as well as many RFC's posted by Sun. >> of course >> it was documented: >Yep. Sadly, the documentation only shows you how to access it, not how >it was done. So, it's not even arguably prior art. With Free Software, >you are sharing the knowledge of the implementation, which is the >important thing. As for the NIT, it could make sense to search the AT&T Streams documents and white papers for a description of the NIT as a transition help from BSD to STREAMS based networking. Jörg EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling(a)fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

6 9

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by Joerg Schilling 10 Apr '02

10 Apr '02

>From: Alex Hudson <home(a)alexhudson.com> >On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> RAW network access has been implemented by Sun in 1986 with: >>=20 >> - Reverse ARP Boot Protocol daemon >>=20 >> - Etherfind (a precursor of Snoop) ... the programs where the ideas >> have been copied as "tcpdump" >Sadly, that doesn't count as prior art, sorry. If it was Free Software, >you might have a case, or if they exported the raw interface via an API >- was that done? While I don't understand why close source cannot be prior art, of course it was documented: NIT(4P) PROTOCOLS NIT(4P) NAME nit - Network Interface Tap CONFIG pseudo-device clone pseudo-device snit pseudo-device pf pseudo-device nbuf SYNOPSIS #include <sys/file.h> #include <sys/ioctl.h> #include <net/nit_pf.h> #include <net/nit_buf.h> fd = open("/dev/nit", mode); ioctl(fd, I_PUSH, "pf"); ioctl(fd, I_PUSH, "nbuf"); DESCRIPTION NIT (the Network Interface Tap) is a facility composed of several STREAMS modules and drivers. These components col- lectively provide facilities for constructing applications that require link-level network access. Examples of such applications include rarpd(8C), which is a user-level imple- mentation of the Reverse ARP protocol, and etherfind(8C), which is a network monitoring and trouble-shooting program. ... Jörg EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling(a)fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

2 1

[Fwd: [ox-en] [Freesw] Free Sw Manifesto in English, (fwd)]
by Stefan Meretz 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: Graham Seaman <graham(a)seul.org> Reply-To: list-en(a)oekonux.org To: list-en(a)oekonux.org ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:18:14 -0300 From: Cl=E1udio Menezes <cmenezes(a)unesco.org.uy> Reply-To: freesw(a)conecta.it To: Freesw List <freesw(a)conecta.it> Subject: [Freesw] Free Sw Manifesto in English, http://www.softwarelivre.rs.gov.br/artigos/manifesto-ing.txt Manifest to the Free Software Community This meeting, in its second edition, is a milestone in the construction of the international free software movement. Our objective on these three days is to strengthen the original mission of the movement which was inspired by the concept of freedom from the Free Software Foundation. We aim to go deeper into the construction of a concrete alternative would insert the technological question into the context of a world with social inclusion, equality and access to technological advances. One year after launching "Projeto Software Livre RS", we have proven this is possible. Beyond limited terms in the national scenery, the free software bases, we have developed many alternatives using free programs. More than this, we inserted ourselves onto the international scene as an important locale of development. We proved, with this, that it is possible for us to be a reference in the technological area, presenting solutions, outside of the economic capitalistic center. This proves that a model based in solidarity, in knowledge socialization produced results-distribution instead of competition. Concentration and accumulation are better suitable for the development of our planet. We have shown that "the other world is possible". Here it's the free software land. The coordination of "Projeto Software Livre RS" requires dialog with other movements and initiatives that aim for alternatives from the international domination and exclusion. For this reason, we presented the "Fórum Social Mundial 2001" here in Porto Alegre. We defined this meeting as one more step, among the many that are occurring in the world, toward the construction of the "Fórum Social Mundial 2001". This way, we'll be strengthening and amplify the free software community and, at the same time, incorporating our specifications into the construction of a global alternative program. We invite the whole free software community: independent developers, governmental entities, non governmental organizations, distribution companies, public and private companies, user groups, universities and research institutions to add up to the construction and convocation of the "Fórum Social Mundial 2002". Please join us next January in Porto Alegre and in the preparation of the "Fórum Internacional de Software Livre 2002" predicted to May 2nd. , 3rd. and 4th. We greet all participating to the "Fórum Internacional de Software Livre 2001" Free Software RS Project Coordination _______________________ http://www.oekonux.org/ -- Vereinte Dienstleistungsgewerkschaft ver.di Internetredaktion Potsdamer Platz 10, 10785 Berlin -- mailto:stefan.meretz@verdi.de maintaining: http://www.verdi.de private stuff: http://www.meretz.de --

1 0

My mail problems over (not important stuff)
by Eneko Lacunza 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

Hi, This is just to say that I've had mail problems during the last 6 days, and I was unable to read any mail. They're over now, and I read you from an other mailbox. Regards. -- Eneko Lacunza JID:enlar@jabber.sk # Por un mundo con conocimiento libre # No a las patentes de software http://www.hispalinux.es - http://www.es.gnome.org http://www.fsfeurope.org - http://sincanon.hispalinux.es

1 0

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by Joerg Schilling 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

>From: Alex Hudson <home(a)alexhudson.com> >I think, but don't quote me ;), that we're actually only talking about >one patent here - 5,437,013. 5,265,261 appears to be an earlier version, >and at first sight Microsoft appear to have narrowed their claim from >the previous version. There is also supposed to be an even earlier >original claim, which has now been completely disclaimed - if anyone can >find it, it would be interesting (I don't think the UKPTO passed it?). >What the patent appears to be is a claim on raw-mode network access, >along the lines of libpcap or something - an efficient way of >marshalling streams of data from applications and the network stack to >the wire so that it actually makes sense. I would be astonished if there >was no good prior art on this; the claim is from ~1993. Even if there is >no prior art, I can't believe that it's even vaguely original. RAW network access has been implemented by Sun in 1986 with: - Reverse ARP Boot Protocol daemon - Etherfind (a precursor of Snoop) ... the programs where the ideas have been copied as "tcpdump" Jörg EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling(a)fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix

2 1

Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by Alexandre Dulaunoy 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

http://www.advogato.org/article/453.html Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards Posted 4 Apr 2002 by atai (Journeyer) In its continuous battle against the GPL, Microsoft is trying a new tactic, a combination of patent claims and licensing of technical standards. In the "Royalty-Free CIFS Technical Reference License Agreement", Microsoft defines the GNU GPL as an "IPR Impairing License" and requires companies not to distribute their implementations of the CIFS specification "in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License." This attack is clearly aimed at the successful GPLed CIFS implementation, Samba. The license defines 1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge. and 1.6 "Necessary Claims" shall mean those claims of a patent or patent application, including without limitation, United States Patents Nos. 5,265,261 and 5,437,013, which (a) are owned, controlled or sublicenseable by Microsoft without payment of a fee to an unaffiliated third party; and (b) are necessarily infringed by implementing the CIFS communication protocol as set forth in the Technical Reference, wherein a claim is necessarily infringed only when there are no technically reasonable alternatives to such infringement. And it requires 3.3 IPR Impairing License Restrictions. For reasons, including without limitation, because (i) Company does not have the right to sublicense its rights to the Necessary Claims and (ii) Company's license rights hereunder to Microsoft's intellectual property are limited in scope, Company shall not distribute any Company Implementation in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the terms of an IPR Impairing License. -- Alexandre Dulaunoy http://www.foo.be/ AD993-RIPE http://www.ael.be/ "People who fight may lose. People who do not fight have already lost." - Bertolt Brecht _______________________________________________ asbl-libre mailing list asbl-libre(a)ael.be http://www.be.linux.org/mailman/listinfo/asbl-libre ASBL Association Electronique Libre http://www.ael.be/

16 30

Re: Software Patents in Europe (Was:Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed wor via licensing of CIFS standards)
by Karin Kosina 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ### Georg Jakob [Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 05:20:49PM +0200] > http://www.fsf.or.at/artikel/softwarepatente.html ... which unfortunately is outdated in as much as it mirrors the status quo of May 2001 :-/ but I promise I will add the recent alarming developments some time really, really soon. And all and any feedback is welcome, there might be mistakes or things that are not clear enough... I wrote this just as summary of a talk I held at the Linuxdays in St. Poelten.... cheers, #!/kyrah - -- Karin Kosina (vka kyrah) http://kyrah.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (Darwin) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8srNI7vvdOh/igesRAhfYAKCd+o9dXvN+owsmILFRGjujdi2YJACfaS39 uMrH3PkPW9/LshBKOL9ipM8= =lclh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by MJ Ray 09 Apr '02

09 Apr '02

M E Leypold: > (2) build an own ressource sharing service. > Option (2) is what you suggest, but to ensure interoperability (which > is the only ticket to getting into existing pure Windows environments) > would require client software for windows. Don't expect MS to write > that, and writing (and promoting) it as a GNU project will also be > difficult, since none of the us AFAIK can access techical > documentation as freely and as early as MS can. I fear that could end > like the Browser war. But I fear that the current situation is going to end like the proprietary OS "war" of the early 90s. If you gift MS the clients, they will get more servers than they ever should have. If Samba provides the initial "way in" (hey, we have the way in) for Free Software, then I am happy, but we should not rest there. We must provide better services and software for our own clients, so that we cannot be locked out from providing the servers by dirty tricks in the client OS. -- MJR

8 12

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by Alistair Davidson 08 Apr '02

08 Apr '02

At 11:00 AM 4/8/02 +0100, Martin Keegan wrote: >I'll say it again: we need a European campaigning organisation for the >digital environment, covering the issues of freedom of speech, privacy, >crypto policy, intellectual property and open architecture. I agree, but as we both know every attempt so far has failed utterly. I think the reason is an obsession with accommodating everyone, making sure we piss noone off and so on. I'm beginning to think that it might be best for the CDR to just form such an organisation itself, with the CDR as the first member and hopefully recruiting other European organisations quickly. I think the CDR experience has shown that it's perfectly possible to campaign while keeping to the "broad tent" idea, simply by focusing on the issues that we all agree on. also, most of the work has been done by a few dedicated individuals doing things without spending ages debating on mailing lists. I think we all no that no of any importance decision is ever taken on a mailing list ;) For non-CDR folks: there's a range of opinion within the CDR, from copyright abolitionists to people who simply want to stop the EUCD and similar measures. Despite this (and the, er, 'heated' discussions it's generated) we've been able to all rally behind the specific campaigns. So far that's been fairly easy because they're all negative, but there's been discussion of positive campaigns that we all agree on, like a positive right to fair use. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
by xdrudis＠tinet.org 08 Apr '02

08 Apr '02

El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 06:40:00PM +0100, Martin Keegan deia: > > If there's a solid case, I'm well up for doing the paperwork to submit a > formal complaint about this issue to the UK Office of Fair Trading, with > whom I was in contact by phone yesterday. What needs to be demonstrated is > evidence of abuse of a dominant position. > I don't know if there is a solid case (IANAL, and IANAUKC) What I know is that the license only cites (not limiting itself to) two USA patents. First of all we shsould know whether there is an European or UK (in your case) patent. If they aren't the license is void of any force. (USA patents only apply to the USA). The problem is how do you know if there is any patent or not. You can never be 100% sure, I'd say, and then you can't go and tell your comrades: keep calm, no real threat here. That's the problem with patents, legal insecurity and therefore very effective FUD. If you find the patent, then you can file the complaint to the UK Office for Fair Trading (or invalidate the patent on subject matter grounds, maybe). But this would only stop this strike. There'll be more and more. Microsoft can hire many lawyers and patent attorneys. There are some hints and todos here: http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/effects/cifs/index.en.html > This document linked from Advogato purports to be a combination of a > copyright licence (as far as I can see -- and on closer inspection, 3.1 > says so) governing copying the Technical Reference document and a patent > licence governing implementation of any system which comes under the > claims of the patents mentioned. > I get the same impression. The force of the copyright license is ridiculous. It does no harm. We don't republish the specification and that's it. The probem is the patent license. So what I tried to say is that the most effective way to fight this is getting rid of software patents, which are just yet illegal in Europe, but are about to be legalised if we don't do something to stop our politicians legalising them. We must also stop the EPO (and I'm told the UKPTO) from issuing patents that don't conform to the law. Without software patents, those types of licenses are impossible, and nobody could forbid nobody to write, publish or trade in tehir own software. I heard that UK is the country pushing for software patents in Europe. So your help trying to change that would be more useful (IMHO) than fighting this single license. If you want to help your country fellows in keeping our law system sane, you may want to read http://swpat.ffii.org/players/uk/index.en.html Writing to your MEPs and Ministers would be most useful. And there is some care to be taken not too be carreid away by playing with words ("we won't patent software, just methods to calculate things with a general computer", "we won't patent programs as such, just programs run on computers", and things like that) > In practical terms, what this is is the US government forcing Microsoft to > disclose technical information relating to one of the essential facilities > it controls, and Microsoft doing so in such a way as to discriminate > against one of its principal competitors. > Microsoft can't fight this competitor in the current market. Their business model is broken, and they live on inertia. Their only recourse is to change the law so that the market is handled to them by our own lawmakers. That's exactly what they're doing in Europe through the BSA. See http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/index.en.html -- Xavi Drudis Ferran xdrudis(a)tinet.org

5 7

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion April 2002