[SLUG] Re: More FUD from Microsoft -- unlicensed IP, IBM/Microsoft "bullies," NDS (DAP/RSA) != AD (LDAP/Kerb)

From: Bryan J. Smith (b.j.smith@ieee.org)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 12:08:40 EST


On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 09:08, James Marcinek wrote:
> Seems to me like the focus of the email about this was Microsoft email about
> Linux having stolen code and legal issues arising from, which I don't believe.

Freedomware (open standard, open source), in general, is written with a
consideration for IP at the _forefront_ of the developer. Why? Because
a respect for IP is what ultimately _protects_ Freedomware itself.

Of course, I think one thing most Linux advocates _fail_ to recognize
that some Freedomware do really rely on unlicensed IP, which is what I
call Sourceware (closed standard, open source). The Debian and Fedora
projects go out of their way to designate such software -- Red Hat
refuses to even put _any_ of it on _any_ of their servers or networks.
E.g., not even the Fedora Extras / Fedora.US repository contains it.

I continuously see people comment that "Red Hat / Fedora sucks" because
it doesn't ship with XMMS w/MP3 or DVD w/CSS. Although you _can_ get
these components with 1 command (c/o Livna.ORG, the repository where
"questionable licenses" went after the Red Hat-Fedora Project merger),
people like to use it as an argument in their "distro pissing contest."
The reality is that I would _never_ allow most Knoppix CDs into the door
of my company, because of the _serious_ issue of _unlicensed_ IP in most
of these "Live CDs." This _is_ a serious "indemnification issue" that
plagues _most_ Linux distributions.

At the same time, Microsoft was just caught "red handed" on shipping
_hacked_ versions of Sound Forge in NT5.1 (Windows XP). Talk about a
massive release screw-up! That one just gave me serious ammunition on
"Microsoft has less control over its Windows release than most reputable
Linux distributors."

> Microsoft is trying to be sneaky and help fund SCO's lawsuit by means of
> a 3rd party company (can't remember name).

I'm not going to even go there (on SCO**).

Just understand Microsoft not only has a history of "swindling" most
OEMs and ISVs out of their IP (from the infamous Apple licensing to
IBM's Windows 95 agreement). These are the typically "waive all rights
to sue over IP infringement" clauses that Microsoft still inserts
despite being regulated not to do such. Sigh, regulation never works.
I think Nader (who I normally don't agree with) "hit it on the head"
when he said the US Government could better get Microsoft to change as
its _largest_customer_ rather than a "regulator."

And when licensing agreements fails, many times companies will begin
negotiations. As these negotiations go on, they share technology with
Microsoft engineers. And despite any NDAs, they see Microsoft engineers
take the ideas, create their own, and then Microsoft "backs away from
the table." Microsoft does this, like IBM** and other "blue chip"
companies, because they have the money to "outlast" and "outlawyer" they
people they violated.

It is because of such repeat and documented offenses of the latter that
I consider the argument of "Linux developers don't care about IP" to be
hypocritical and inaccurate. Most commercial developers, especially
contract developers, care _little_ about IP and security issues that
will only become an issue when they are no longer on the project,
possibly not at the organization at all.

[ **NOTE: Make no mistake, while "SCO is evil," IBM helped fester this
by "being a bully" to SCO. I happen to agree with several of them. So
don't confuse SCO v. IBM (contract dispute) and SCO v. Linux (IP
issue). People keep ignoring this fact, but if SCO can get a jury
trial, don't be surprised if SCO _wins_ on some of its articles issued
against IBM in March of 2003. If they do, it does _not_ mean SCO IP is
in Linux -- not at all -- but many will assume such. ]

> In addition where did Microsoft get it's AD concept from? Can anyone say
> Novell's NDS...

Actually no. <soapbox>That is a _very_poor_ "ass-u-me-mption" and you
should never make such without _actual_, _technical_ fact.</soapbox ;->

NDS/eDirectory is a _full_ X.500/DAP** implementation using licensed RSA
public key mechanisms.

ActiveDirectory is based on a lesser LDAP** implementation using
Kerberos ticketing.

In the case of Kerberos, Microsoft signed a licensing agreement with MIT
where they would release their full specifications under an "open"
arrangement and not extend the protocol. They violated _both_, waiting
over 2 years and releasing under an EULA-type agreement, as well as
extending the protocol.

[ **NOTE: The difference in X.500/DAP v. LDAP becomes _crucial_ from a
replication/conversion standpoint. I.e., LDAP has severe limitations
from a DN (distinguished name) standpoint, and some objects must be
named unique (in addition to the requirement for legacy CIFS/SMB
compatibility). X.500/DAP does not. ]

-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith@ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:56:43 EDT