tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post2640412702792925812..comments2024-03-22T12:20:48.920+00:00Comments on open...: EU: 2, Microsoft, 1Glyn Moodyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-25961677673726850892007-09-19T07:29:00.000+00:002007-09-19T07:29:00.000+00:00Yes, that's a good point - I'd forgotten that.Yes, that's a good point - I'd forgotten that.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-84606232459803571892007-09-19T00:25:00.000+00:002007-09-19T00:25:00.000+00:00If you had seen Andrew Tridgells explanation of th...If you had seen Andrew Tridgells explanation of the difference between protocols and code in the court I don't think you would be suprised. I think anyone would have followed it, let alone a bunch of non-technical but *very* bright judges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-60960518361983911462007-09-18T20:24:00.000+00:002007-09-18T20:24:00.000+00:00Unfortunately, I don't have any special insight in...Unfortunately, I don't have any special insight into what was passing through the EU in 2005 (luckily....), but I think I can answer your second question.<BR/><BR/>If ordinary licences were adopted, they would just need to be RAND: Reasonable And Non-Discriminating. But a licence that demanded even a small, nominal sum - say one Euro - would be infeasible for open source software, since projects have no budgets, and it would be impossible to distribute copies.<BR/><BR/>So the only way open source can actually use the protocols is if they are licensed under an open source licence - that is, one that makes them freely available.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-4762138616884002032007-09-18T20:14:00.000+00:002007-09-18T20:14:00.000+00:00Thanks, Glynn. Maybe I'm just overparsing the EUs ...Thanks, Glynn. Maybe I'm just overparsing the EUs 2005 language. <BR/>-- Why did the EU feel the need to say that in 2005 since all kinds of applications, database and "workgroup server" software suppliers have been interoperating with Windows client for 20 years? They have not all been doing it by reverse engineering.<BR/>-- Why was/is it more or less possible for a piece of code licensed under an OSS license than under a traditional license? What is problematic for Samba?<BR/><BR/>Apparently Red Hat has changed its mind about its original exuberance given its second press release on the subject today (http://investors.redhat.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=67156&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1052584&highlight=)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-67304663432500854682007-09-18T12:25:00.000+00:002007-09-18T12:25:00.000+00:00Well, I think it comes down to the difference betw...Well, I think it comes down to the difference between the protocols and the code that implements them. Protocols are really just a set of rules, and you can implement them in different ways.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, this was precisely how Samba was written: the rules of Microsoft's networking were worked out laboriously by watching how they worked, and then new code was written to implement them.<BR/><BR/>The problem was working out all the details of the latest protocols. If Microsoft gives out those details, as they now must, the implementation will be simpler. But it won't require any access to Microsoft's own code.Glyn Moodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04436885795882611585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19798349.post-58330551415097290532007-09-18T12:07:00.000+00:002007-09-18T12:07:00.000+00:00Actually what is most interesting is that what the...Actually what is most interesting is that what the court ruling said and what the commission has said seem to differ. Despite the quote from the 9/17/2007 Court of First Instance ruling above, the EU Competition Commissioner said in 2005 (according to multiple press reports at the time): "The commission remains committed to ensuring that in due course it will become possible to use certain interoperability information from Microsoft in software products distributed under an open source license." <BR/><BR/>I do not see how that could happen without Microsoft open sourcing the code in the way we all understand that term (rules 0-4 or 1-10 depending on which end of the OSS spectrum you are on). <BR/><BR/>You don't say but I assume this is why these words are problematic for Samba?? Can anyone educate me on this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com