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 adulau-conos@conostix.com writes:
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
5,265,261 is easy to work around (just move the functionality described in this patent to the kernel; the claims cover only applications).
I'm not sure how to work around the second patent. You could move the redirector to a different machine (although this would hamper performance), or you could avoid a separate "redirector" entity (I don't know if it is feasible).
Or you could search prior art. ;-)
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau-conos@conostix.com wrote:
Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
Can someone tell me whether we should expect this tactic against any Free Software .net implementations? Thanks, MJR.
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 00:19, MJ Ray wrote:
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau-conos@conostix.com wrote:
Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
Can someone tell me whether we should expect this tactic against any Free Software .net implementations? Thanks, MJR.
This has been discussed before. By participating in the ECMA standardisation process (for part of the CLR) Microsoft are forced to disclose any patents that are key for the operation of the system that they are not willing to licence. So, if they do have patents, they will either be RAND or not critical for the operation of the CLR (i.e., run-time compiler optimizations is a likely subject).
Passport is probably the subject of patents, although I've never seen any mention of patents which might be applicable. We already know of the first two CIFS patents, and there are probably other patents which apply to CIFS/SMB - security facilities are often another easy target.
I would expect that Mono will be pretty safe from patent disputes. Their problem is possible copyright infringement from people who've interacted with Rotor and the Microsoft implementation of mscorlib.dll. Everything else they are doing is pretty run-of-the-mill.
dotGnu probably has worse problems, given the larger scope of the project. Rotor, etc., also poses them a problem, but I would expect that some of the stuff they intend to do will infringe some patent or other (especially the crypto/identity stuff).
I would love to see Microsoft attempt to enforce its CIFS patents. From the look of them, they don't look especially strong, and there are strong interests that want to see SMB/CIFS stay unencumbered (Sun spring to mind..). Sadly it looks like they will be used more as barriers for independent developers - lines in the sand they dare not cross.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
[...] So, if they do have patents, they will either be RAND or not critical for the operation of the CLR (i.e., run-time compiler optimizations is a likely subject).=20
RAND is not good enough, is it?
On Sáb, 2002-04-06 at 10:58, MJ Ray wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
[...] So, if they do have patents, they will either be RAND or not critical for the operation of the CLR (i.e., run-time compiler optimizations is a likely subject).=20
RAND is not good enough, is it?
No, because RAND licenses are per copy, so you can't have the freedom to redistribute the program. This means it can't be used on Free Software.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 04:56:05PM +0100, Jo?o Miguel Neves wrote:
On S?b, 2002-04-06 at 10:58, MJ Ray wrote:
RAND is not good enough, is it?
No, because RAND licenses are per copy, so you can't have the freedom to redistribute the program. This means it can't be used on Free Software.
Why do we care about those patents at all? I agree that the USA is an important part of the world, but it isn't *the* world. We don't have patents in Europe and hopefully never get them. This means patents aren't a problem for all developers in non-USA world. You have the freedom to redistributie the program, only in some countries where the people don't have freedom you can't. (Countries like the USA, Irak, etc.)
Jeroen Dekkers
El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:21:02PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers deia:
important part of the world, but it isn't *the* world. We don't have patents in Europe and hopefully never get them. This means patents
I think our time is not for hoping but for helping hope with some action. The directive proposal 2002/0047 to introduce software patents in Europe has been written (mostly) by the BSA, has been blessed by the Comission, and is in the European Parliament and the Council. We better make sure our elected politicians know what to vote.
And Europe _has_ software patents. It's just that they aren't legal, so nobody knows how threatening they are until you come back from court. But something like 30000 software patents have been granted by the EPO. I'm told they're enough to frighten people and stop them from writing or publishing software sometimes.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:32:52PM +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:21:02PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers deia:
important part of the world, but it isn't *the* world. We don't have patents in Europe and hopefully never get them. This means patents
I think our time is not for hoping but for helping hope with some action. The directive proposal 2002/0047 to introduce software patents in Europe has been written (mostly) by the BSA, has been blessed by the Comission, and is in the European Parliament and the Council. We better make sure our elected politicians know what to vote.
That was actually what I intended to say with my mail. If we stop patents now microsoft can't play the same tactics in Europe and we can probably develop the patented things in Europe. For the USA patents, I personally don't care about them, as I don't live in the USA and don't have any plans to go there. Yes, it's a bad situation, but IMHO we need to be sure that the EU isn't going that bad way first.
And Europe _has_ software patents. It's just that they aren't legal,
Let's keep it illegal. :)
so nobody knows how threatening they are until you come back from court. But something like 30000 software patents have been granted by the EPO. I'm told they're enough to frighten people and stop them from writing or publishing software sometimes.
I didn't know this, I hope they aren't threatening at all. :(
Jeroen Dekkers
El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:27:20PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers deia:
That was actually what I intended to say with my mail. If we stop patents now microsoft can't play the same tactics in Europe and we can probably develop the patented things in Europe. For the USA patents, I personally don't care about them, as I don't live in the USA and don't have any plans to go there. Yes, it's a bad situation, but IMHO we need to be sure that the EU isn't going that bad way first.
Ok. I quite agree (I think we would do well to care for the USA _after_ we solve our own problems).
so nobody knows how threatening they are until you come back from court. But something like 30000 software patents have been granted by the EPO. I'm told they're enough to frighten people and stop them from writing or publishing software sometimes.
I didn't know this, I hope they aren't threatening at all. :(
The fact you can't be sure it's a threat in itself. Of course it will get worse if they're legalised.
Since you didn't know, you may want to see the European Software Patent Horror Gallery
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/index.en.html
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Why do we care about those patents at all? I agree that the USA is an
It's not the patents (the Ethernet patents have been great for free software), it's the licensing. Intellectual Property law (copyrights, patents, etc) says Microsoft can license the patents and its copyrighted work as it wants to. Competition law says otherwise.
I'll tell you why we should care about this (namely the action by Microsoft which occasioned this thread):
This action is an attempt to hurt Samba. Samba is critical to the wider acceptance of free software. If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. The fewer users there are, the smaller the resistance will be to attempts to lock down the hardware so free software won't run on it.
If you want free software only to run on old hardware, so be it. That's not a world I want to live in.
important part of the world, but it isn't *the* world. We don't have patents in Europe and hopefully never get them. This means patents
This is simply false.
aren't a problem for all developers in non-USA world. You have the freedom to redistributie the program, only in some countries where the people don't have freedom you can't. (Countries like the USA, Irak,
Are you from a country which has the European Copyright Directive, or is within the territory of the European Patent Office?
Mk
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Why do we care about those patents at all? I agree that the USA is an
It's not the patents (the Ethernet patents have been great for free software), it's the licensing. Intellectual Property law (copyrights, patents, etc) says Microsoft can license the patents and its copyrighted work as it wants to. Competition law says otherwise.
I'll tell you why we should care about this (namely the action by Microsoft which occasioned this thread):
The action of Microsoft shows that we are going to good way, we are really a big threat to them and that's nice. We only have to be sure we can continue and win the war.
This action is an attempt to hurt Samba. Samba is critical to the wider acceptance of free software. If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. The fewer users there are, the smaller the resistance will be to attempts to lock down the hardware so free software won't run on it.
But the actual patent license doesn't matter much AFAICS. Yes, this is something wrong, but I think we can work around it at least.
important part of the world, but it isn't *the* world. We don't have patents in Europe and hopefully never get them. This means patents
This is simply false.
I mean software patents and they aren't legal in Europe AFAIK.
aren't a problem for all developers in non-USA world. You have the freedom to redistributie the program, only in some countries where the people don't have freedom you can't. (Countries like the USA, Irak,
Are you from a country which has the European Copyright Directive, or is within the territory of the European Patent Office?
Yes, I know of the bad things happening at the moment. However, I don't see how the patents of microsoft harm me.
Jeroen Dekkers
El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:20:39PM +0100, Martin Keegan deia:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
Why do we care about those patents at all? I agree that the USA is an
It's not the patents (the Ethernet patents have been great for free software), it's the licensing. Intellectual Property law (copyrights,
I disagree. The problem is the patents grant he owner the right to impose any license (yes, yes, there is other law too, so you can't ask the licensee for his first son).
Any patent is a deal between society and the patentee. Society is supposed to gain an invention that it wouldn't know otherwise, and the patenty gets the privilege to take away the freedom of members of the society to commercialise the invention (for 20 years maximum).
I don' know about mechanics, chemicals, etc. And I don't know about electronics, which is, I guess, what the Ethernet patent is about. Possibly in those fields patents are a good deal as you say. I don't work in that, so I don't know.
But for software, patents are a bad deal for society. It gains a discovery it would have got anyway sooner or later (probably as soon as it needs it, because you don't have to build an expensive laboratory to innovate in software), and pays with freedom to commercialise software. Since software is information it pays with freedom to distribute information, (free expression, anyone?) and that is more than what you pay when letting your patent office grant a patent for a car engine. After all, many more people benefit from new car engines than are able to set up a car engine factory but can't because of the patent. For software, there are just as many people benefiting from new software than there are with a computer to write it and distribute it, so you pay with many more people's freedoms for something you would have anyway. I call that a bad deal.
So the problem is software patents. Not a particular way of licensing.
patents, etc) says Microsoft can license the patents and its copyrighted work as it wants to. Competition law says otherwise.
Current European law (European Patent Convention article 52) says you can't patent programs for computers as such. If you can't patent them, you can't license them. The problem is the EPO does not obey that law.
I'll tell you why we should care about this (namely the action by Microsoft which occasioned this thread):
This action is an attempt to hurt Samba. Samba is critical to the
I agree, samba is critical. But I think we should cure the disease, not the symptoms.
Sorry, I'm preaching to the choir, ain't I?. Your "It's not the patents" is what got me started.
Martin Keegan martin@no.ucant.org wrote:
This action is an attempt to hurt Samba. Samba is critical to the wider acceptance of free software.
It need not be, although it currently is. Samba is just an implementation of someone else's interfaces, which is not normally a good way to succeed. You're always going to be behind and they have the upper hand. Why help them to continue their misrule?
What we need is a reliable read-write user-driven mount over an encrypted connection. For Linux, AVFS looks like the best potential solution at present, so if you want to help there, find how to fix their ssh module (or document it better so that I can figure it out) so as to talk to my ssh-agent (probably echoing the details into a ssh_ctl or similar), if it's possible. For now, I have AVFS doing ftp mounts and the like.
I expect this sort of thing is simple for hurd ;-)
If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. [...]
Will they still, if we have a better alternative? Surely Samba is normally used during migration. You never know, availability of a more secure remote mount may make them have to implement it in their OS at last. Then we have the upper hand.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:51:09PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. [...]
Will they still, if we have a better alternative?
Most use samba because it's the best alternative for CIFS servicing, not because CIFS is the best remote filesystem.
Surely Samba is normally used during migration.
I don't think so. Some substitute win32 servers for free unix servers, but remain with win32 clients because of the "habituation" caused by Word and a dumb GUI. Some even use free unix servers without the knowledge of the lesser technical managers.
You never know, availability of a more secure remote mount may make them have to implement it in their OS at last. Then we have the upper hand.
Availability of more secure remote mounts hasn't yet made then implement them. Microsoft is in a position were it can dictate the standars (most of them) used by clients, and those trying to fight Microsoft then have to provide both server and clients with support for the same services.
Regards, Luciano Rocha
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
Surely Samba is normally used during migration.
I don't think so. Some substitute win32 servers for free unix servers, but remain with win32 clients because of the "habituation" caused by Word and a dumb GUI. Some even use free unix servers without the knowledge of the
I must stress that it's not just habituation, it's network lock-in. Not only is there an installed base of people who grok Windows (and therefore a large, distributed cost in switching over to GNU/Linux or any other system), there is the problem that people use Windows because it interoperates with what they think is going to be the most widely-used system (namely Windows). It's entirely rational for people to behave this way.
Either you have to interoperate perfectly with Windows (nigh-on impossible as Microsoft keeps changing the specifications), or you have to change the perception that it's going to be the dominant system in the future.
Mk
On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 01:18, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:51:09PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. [...]
Will they still, if we have a better alternative?
Most use samba because it's the best alternative for CIFS servicing, not because CIFS is the best remote filesystem.
Exactly!
Surely Samba is normally used during migration.
I don't think so. Some substitute win32 servers for free unix servers, but remain with win32 clients because of the "habituation" caused by Word and a dumb GUI. Some even use free unix servers without the knowledge of the lesser technical managers.
Sometimes that is true, but generally people stay with win32 clients because they miss crtical apps to perform they work or need time to make a full migration. I'm not saying that everyone is near to swith to a free desktop operating system, but I know many would make the switch if all applications they need were there or if porting their custom environment and home made application can be ported easily.
So Samba is used for migration and also as is, many NAS vendors lately offer CIFS appliances that have samba under the cover.
You never know, availability of a more secure remote mount may make them have to implement it in their OS at last. Then we have the upper hand.
Availability of more secure remote mounts hasn't yet made then implement them. Microsoft is in a position were it can dictate the standars (most of them) used by clients, and those trying to fight Microsoft then have to provide both server and clients with support for the same services.
True, you can see the Pc-NFS has never made it into the MS world.
I want also reassure some people on the destiny if Samba. Samba has been made without that specification and we are not going to read it so we are not bound to those terms as far as I know.
And note that the conditions posed are not a license, they form a contract. Copyright laws do not permit a license to dictate the license of other (non derivative) works, and as far as I know also the patents law do not permit that (but of course a licensor may impose the acceptance of a contract as a condition to concede the use of techniques subject to the patent). Hopefully we have some chances to avoid patents on software in Europe.
Simo.
The best piece of background material I've found on the topic of interoperability and why it's critical is Varian & Shapiro's "Information Rules". It even has its own website: http://www.inforules.com/, though you need to buy the paper copy, and it's well worth it.
Mk
The best piece of background material I've found on the topic of interoperability and why it's critical is Varian & Shapiro's "Information Rules". It even has its own website: http://www.inforules.com/, though you need to buy the paper copy, and it's well worth it.
For german readers: The translation is available under the utterly misleading title "Online zum Erfolg", 1999, Wirtschaftsverlag Langen Müller/Herbig, ISBN 3-7844-7395-4.
Hal R. Varian has further online materials on his Economics website at http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/resources/infoecon/
Matthias
On Sun, 7 Apr 2002, Matthias Leisi wrote:
For german readers: The translation is available under the utterly misleading title "Online zum Erfolg", 1999, Wirtschaftsverlag Langen M�ller/Herbig, ISBN 3-7844-7395-4.
Hal R. Varian has further online materials on his Economics website at http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/resources/infoecon/
A useful educational project would be to take the ideas in V&S and put them up on the web in our own words. (I find it unlikely that the authors would license the text, but it's worth asking).
Mk
El Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 12:37:34PM +0200, Simo Sorce deia:
I want also reassure some people on the destiny if Samba. Samba has been made without that specification and we are not going to read it so we are not bound to those terms as far as I know.
I don't think readingit makes any difference about patents. Your strategy should work with copyright.
And note that the conditions posed are not a license, they form a contract. Copyright laws do not permit a license to dictate the license of other (non derivative) works, and as far as I know also the patents law do not permit that (but of course a licensor may impose the
The patent laws forbid commercialisation of indepently developed (non derivative) solutions falling under the patent claims unless you get a license from the patent holder. You don't even need to know the patent or the invention exist, or how to license it. They can sue you all the same.
Hopefully we have some chances to avoid patents on software in Europe.
Yes, as long as we do, you'll be right.
IANAL
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:51:09PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Martin Keegan martin@no.ucant.org wrote:
This action is an attempt to hurt Samba. Samba is critical to the wider acceptance of free software.
It need not be, although it currently is. Samba is just an implementation of someone else's interfaces, which is not normally a good way to succeed. You're always going to be behind and they have the upper hand. Why help them to continue their misrule?
What we need is a reliable read-write user-driven mount over an encrypted connection. For Linux, AVFS looks like the best potential solution at present, so if you want to help there, find how to fix their ssh module (or document it better so that I can figure it out) so as to talk to my ssh-agent (probably echoing the details into a ssh_ctl or similar), if it's possible. For now, I have AVFS doing ftp mounts and the like.
I expect this sort of thing is simple for hurd ;-)
From what I know of AVFS, it's just one big joke. You can do that already with the Hurd and in way which is much better IMHO. I expect to see such things you are describing being implemented up when the Hurd matures a bit. Our primary focus is stability at the moment.
Jeroen Dekkers
Hi,
MJ Ray writes:
If they can't get Samba as part of the package, many users won't choose a free system, they'll chose a proprietary system. [...]
Will they still, if we have a better alternative? Surely Samba is normally used during migration. You never know, availability of a more secure remote mount may make them have to implement it in their OS at last. Then we have the upper hand.
I think migration is (in "real life") a slow and often very painful process. If you look to big corporations you'll find they still use old UNISYS systems from the 70ties and IBM Mainframes -- not for fun, but out of necessity. So more often than not, it's not migration, but integration: Run+build the new system(s) parallel to the old ones. Applikations that bridge both worlds are essential then. Since CIFS is the majority solution for LAN file+resource sharing in the DOS/Windows world, and it is that kind of installation Linux/Hurd/whatever-free-software has to penetrate ([1] in example: in the Greman Bundestag the decision is now to use Linux usw. for the servers and Windows for the desktop -- which leaves the option to migrate to Linux later and perhaps incrementally, but I bet that'll only happen if Linux can interoperate smoothly with the remaining Windows machines).
What I want to say: From that point of view interoperability matters (a lot) and we have 2 option (as far as ressource sharing is concerned):
(1) Samba and it's successor version -- now threatened by the license in question, and
(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.
So after all I think, the best way is not to require from Windows users to install any additional software at their machines, but instead emulate MS server functionality: Back to Samba.
Regards -- Markus
El Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 08:17:38AM +0100, Alex Hudson deia:
Can someone tell me whether we should expect this tactic against any Free Software .net implementations? Thanks, MJR.
I don't remember reading it myself, but apparently this may talk about it (Ballmer at CeBIT). Of course you possibly have to read through the FUD.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-12.03.02-000/
And, to Alex, RAND is incompatible with free software, and if it wasn't we should check the exact terms of the ECMA policy (is M$ forced to diclose/license all patents, or can they claim later they didn't realise they had a patent that blocks the standard?).
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 12:10, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
Can someone tell me whether we should expect this tactic against any Free Software .net implementations? Thanks, MJR.
And, to Alex, RAND is incompatible with free software, and if it wasn't we should check the exact terms of the ECMA policy (is M$ forced to diclose/license all patents, or can they claim later they didn't realise they had a patent that blocks the standard?).
I wasn't suggesting it was acceptable. The question was, can a patent/licence combination stop Free Software developers from developing a .net implementation. The answer is no - Microsoft currently do not have the aggressive patents needed to make it work. What patents they might have are more like annoyances, than actual road-blocks.
Cheers,
Alex.
Hi all,
For the german-speaking readers among you: I'd like to point you to some very good article by kyrah on software patents in Europe.
http://www.fsf.or.at/artikel/softwarepatente.html
It has already been pointed out that theoretically, sw patents are illegal in Europe, but that they're granted nevertheless. Now kyrah did some absolutely great research which shows how absurd sw patents really are. This might not be new to most of you, but the article is a very important tool nevertheless - it provides exactly the kind of information clueless politicians etc. need to maybe reevaluate their efforts of legalizing SW Patents. So please spread it, and maybe help provide translations!
MJ Ray writes:
Alexandre Dulaunoy adulau-conos@conostix.com wrote:
Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
Can someone tell me whether we should expect this tactic against any Free Software .net implementations? Thanks, MJR.
Expect the worst. I'm no Mikrosoftie, but the direction of that licensing clauses is clear to me. If it works, there will be more of that kind.
Regards -- Markus
hi, my name is alexander braun and I did not contribute much to the discussions yet. I'm not sure if I understood the topic correctly, but I looked up the two patents.
though IANAL: is it possible to attack patent no. 5,265,261 due to terms of prior art? I only read the abstract but it seems to me it is a clear description of tcp/ip but with an initial date from 1993. and i don't see any difference to 5,437,013. both patents talk of :
""" A method and system for sending data from a first computer through a communications line to a second computer. The second computer includes a redirector, a transport, a data buffer, and an application program. The method and system provides the transport with a read request to send data from the first computer to the second computer, and with a receive network control block which directs the transport to store the next data it receives directly in the data buffer. The transport sends the read request to the first computer. The first computer stores the data identified by the read request in a data block without a header. The first computer transmits the data block over the communications line to the transport. Using information contained in the network control block, the transport stores the requested data without the header directly in the data buffer. """
in the abstract. Propabely I missed soemthing, but for my NO-Lawyer-ears this sounds like a common description of two computers in _any_ network.
Attacking these patents will not help to protect SAMBA as a whole, because M$ will insist on the IPR-stuff, but perhaps it might help delaying the battle. (because it's an american patent this might be an action of the FSF-hq)
Alexander Braun
On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 05:35:59PM +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
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@ael.be http://www.be.linux.org/mailman/listinfo/asbl-libre
ASBL Association Electronique Libre http://www.ael.be/
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 06:00, alexander@alexanderbraun.de wrote:
though IANAL: is it possible to attack patent no. 5,265,261 due to terms of prior art? I only read the abstract but it seems to me it is a clear description of tcp/ip but with an initial date from 1993. and i don't see any difference to 5,437,013.
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.
So, it looks like that Samba doesn't infringe on this patent (unless it requires raw access for broadcasts or something?) as-is. But it also looks like this patent could be dangerous for applications beyond those that implement/use SMB - it looks like even tcpdump would infringe :(
Cheers,
Alex.
alexander@alexanderbraun.de writes:
hi, my name is alexander braun and I did not contribute much to the discussions yet. I'm not sure if I understood the topic correctly, but I looked up the two patents.
though IANAL: is it possible to attack patent no. 5,265,261 due to terms of prior art? I only read the abstract but it seems to me it is a clear description of tcp/ip but with an initial date from 1993. and i don't see any difference to 5,437,013. both patents talk of :
""" A method and system for sending data from a first computer through a communications line to a second computer. The second computer includes a redirector, a transport, a data buffer, and an application program. The method and system provides the transport with a read request to send data from the first computer to the second computer, and with a receive network control block which directs the transport to store the next data it receives directly in the data buffer. The transport sends the read request to the first computer. The first computer stores the data identified by the read request in a data block without a header. The first computer transmits the data block over the communications line to the transport. Using information contained in the network control block, the transport stores the requested data without the header directly in the data buffer. """
If you ask me, if patents on software should ever be allowed, it should be required that the description is accompanied by a formal specification in a common modelling language, like Z, Larch, VDM or whatever. This would clarify what the people really mean, avoid spongy description like the above, and be actually a real win for other people going to implement the stuff. And patents would be much less :-], and equivalence could be decidable.
Regards -- Markus
is it possible to attack patent no. 5,265,261 due to terms of prior art?
I don't think we are concerned about that. At least I am not. It's wasted time as it leads to nothing.
The problem of patents on abstract concepts (so-called "sw patents") isn't addressed by fighting each patent in turn. And the problem of misuse of license contracts and libel ("IPR impairing"), or FUD more in general isn't addressed by addressing this specific patent.
Moreover, if we deal with the details we appear to accept the overall ideas and thus publicly agree to have them explored further.
I express my own points, not those of any organization I belong to.