Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
Samba's Big Step
December 21, 2007
Posted by: Glyn Moody
OK, so I was wrong.
When Neelie Kroes proudly announced her deal with Microsoft over interoperability information, it seemed to me like a classic case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Worse, it suggested that the doddering European Commission had been finessed by Microsoft's deft lawyers, with an apparent slapdown for the company concealing its underlying victory over free software.
But now we have this announcement from the people most affected by the deal, the Samba hackers, and they seem to paradigmatically “over the moon”:
Andrew Tridgell, creator of Samba, said, "We are very pleased to be able to get access to the technical information necessary to continue to develop Samba as a Free Software project. Although we were disappointed the decision did not address the issue of patent claims over the protocols, it was a great achievement for the European Commission and for enforcement of antitrust laws in Europe. The agreement allows us to keep Samba up to date with recent changes in Microsoft Windows, and also helps other Free Software projects that need to interoperate with Windows".
Actually, I wasn't completely wrong. According to Tridge's fascinating history of the case – a must-read – that original deal was not unproblematic:
Our initial reaction was dismay. The per-copy royalties on the patent license were completely incompatible with the principles of free software, so we knew that we could not even consider that agreement. We had hoped that the commission would view the courts decision of the 17th of September as sufficient to warrant a patent license which didn't involve a per-copy royalty, but unfortunately that was not the case.
That was my view, too. But:
Then a remarkable thing happened. Responding to an article on Groklaw where the agreement was being discussed, the trustee Neil Barrett posted a suggestion that I get in touch with him. Neil directed me to Craig Shank, who heads up Microsoft's protocol licensing team. Neil thought that Craig would be the right person to talk to to try and fix some of the problematic parts of the agreement.
This in turn resulted in several weeks of intensive discussions, during which we found that Microsoft was indeed very willing to make modifications to the agreement to make it more suitable for use by the free software community. Microsoft was keen to ensure that it complied with the court ruling, Neil Barrett was happy to help facilitate those discussions, and of course we were more than willing to point out the parts of the agreement that were problematic for free software projects.
The final solution is complex, but important. It sees the creation of a new entity – indeed, a wholly new beast in the world of free software – called the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit organisation created by the Software Freedom Law Center. It is this body that will receive the protocol information from Microsoft, and then make it available to other free software projects. Crucially:
Although the documentation itself will be held in confidence by the PFIF and Samba Team engineers, the agreement allows the publication of the source code of the implementation of these protocols without any further restrictions. This is fully compatible with versions two and three of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
The other key element of the new agreement is:
Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols, without granting an implicit patent license to any Free Software implementation.
That may not seem like much of a concession, but Tridge explains why it helps:
The Samba Team has for a long time put a lot of effort into ensuring that we don't infringe any patents. I have spent countless hours talking to patent attorneys, and analysing patents to ensure we don't infringe. The problem is that the number of patents we have to analyse is unbounded. We have generally found it isn't too much of a problem to avoid infringement of patents that we know about, but what about patents that we don't know about?
The list essentially tells the team what they have to code around. Moreover, for any patents not listed, Microsoft has committed not to sue anybody implementing the protocols.
There are a number of major implications of this new agreement.
First, it confirms that there are groups within Microsoft who are willing to work in good faith with the free software world – whatever their chair-hurling boss may say. Judging by Tridge's comments – and contrary to my own impressions – it also demonstrates that there are people within the European Commission who really get this open source stuff, and want to nurture it. That's something that goes well beyond this agreement, since it is likely to impact future decisions too.
This news also underlies just how impressive the Samba team and its leaders are, particularly Tridge and Jeremy Allison: they are operating at the cutting edge of free software – notably where it interacts with Microsoft, arguably one of the most tricky areas.
Related to this, the creation of the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation and the complicated process of accessing Microsoft's interoperability details and navigating around the software patents it claims, have created a major precedent for future deals. If enough people within Microsoft are willing to take a similar approach in other areas, it may well be that this is the most important long-term result to come out of what has been an extremely long and painful process.
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'Samba's Big Step' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Our Daily & Weekly Newsletters highlight breaking news, vital issues, expert analysis and solutions to help you stay ahead of developments in the industry.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
1 said on Tuesday, 25 December 2007
1
TB said on Tuesday, 25 December 2007
yup another M/S Xmas gift arrived here.........
Get a clue. said on Tuesday, 25 December 2007
"First, it confirms that there are groups within Microsoft who are willing to work in good faith with the free software world – whatever their chair-hurling boss ....."
Bullshit. What it confirms is a monopoly that has been convicted of illegal practices on TWO continents under TWO different legal systems.
Of which the later system (EU) did not wuss out like our lame government and put the appropriate screws to Microsoft.
All this amounts to is Microsoft throwing some chump change at their conviction to keep either legal system happy.... they have something else up their sleeve to make this agreement essentially worthless.
Get a clue. said on Tuesday, 25 December 2007
"First, it confirms that there are groups within Microsoft who are willing to work in good faith with the free software world – whatever their chair-hurling boss ....."
Bullshit. What it confirms is a monopoly that has been convicted of illegal practices on TWO continents under TWO different legal systems.
Of which the later system (EU) did not wuss out like our lame government and put the appropriate screws to Microsoft.
All this amounts to is Microsoft throwing some chump change at their conviction to keep either legal system happy.... they have something else up their sleeve to make this agreement essentially worthless.
Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 26 December 2007
The point is that Microsoft went well beyond the requirements of the EU agreement. And you don't have to take my word for it; this is what Tridge wrote in his history of the agreement: "we found that Microsoft was indeed very willing to make modifications to the agreement to make it more suitable for use by the free software community."
Of course, it's eminently possible that Microsoft does still have some tricks up its sleeve, but it's nonetheless interesting that it was prepared to make this move in the first place.
still needs watching.. and reading between the lin said on Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Glyn... this is at the very least a "leaf" off an alive branch.. not an olive branch... because of MS's constant unethical practices... it is hard to get past any negative attitude one has towards them... and because of this, and after ready about this leaf they have given up.. i sit here waiting for the next article that says how MS not only is taking back the leaf.. but they want a tree with it aswell.. it is going to take alot more.. and i do mean ALOT more good will on MS's part to have anyone believe they even have the smallest chance of change.... im glad that this atleast has happened.. but there is that always lingering feeling of "just wait until the other shoes has droped"
still needs watching.. and reading between the lin said on Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Glyn... this is at the very least a "leaf" off an alive branch.. not an olive branch... because of MS's constant unethical practices... it is hard to get past any negative attitude one has towards them... and because of this, and after ready about this leaf they have given up.. i sit here waiting for the next article that says how MS not only is taking back the leaf.. but they want a tree with it aswell.. it is going to take alot more.. and i do mean ALOT more good will on MS's part to have anyone believe they even have the smallest chance of change.... im glad that this atleast has happened.. but there is that always lingering feeling of "just wait until the other shoes has droped"
Alex C. said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
MS has many smart, talented 'good' employees, good as in 'not evil'. The top tier management is 'Evil', but the workers/coders/middle managers are not. Most MS employees want a better software world just like us : )
Cheers,
Alex C
Sum Yung Gai said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
Not really true, Alex. What most MS employees actually want is for their personal stock options to go up. They don't really give a rip about a "better software world" other than how it immediately affects that stock option.
Robuka Kenderle said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
I refuse to believe that Microsoft spent 3.8 BILLION to buy out Sun, Novell, Real so they would drop this case, suffered through a long court case and all the publicity that came alogn with it just so they could leave some middle management type to decide how much they will collaborate with the judgement.
This isnt like telling Joe in cubicle 5B23 to choose which driver he thinks will suit his project needs.
This was a decision done much higher up and certainly with lawyers involved to gauge how much info they have to give out, how much they should give out and how much they will as well as try to predict any potential problems that might arise from different scenarios.
This move has repercussions.
Robuka Kenderle said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
Your 'intrepid band of open source fifth columnists' angle might sound romantic but it shows a total lack of understanding of how decisions are made in large corporations.
You really think that this was done
without any knowledge from the higher ups? And what do you think would happen to them when they are found out? Do they execute traitors in Redmond or just fire them?
I'm sure that out of thousands of Microsoft employees, some are sympatico with FLOSS but " there are groups within Microsoft who are willing to work in good faith with the free software world – whatever their chair-hurling boss may say" is sheer fantasy.
Lots of open source bloggers are in good standing with the Microsoft 'open source' guy, Bill Milf. You know, the guy who is now promoted to Windows server
manager. They all think he is a nice guy and they try to convince us that he is 'one of us' and that he really understand open source.
Robuka Kenderle said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
I've read his comments over the past few moments and at best he plays the good cop to Ballmer's bad cop but friendly to FLOSS?
Yes. But only if you compare him to Ballmer on this topic.
Open source competes with his new department. His job now is to regain the server market it lost to open source.
10-12 years ago, I would have maybe granted that open source wasnt a big priority for Microsoft but in 2008, Microsoft’s open source policy is set by CEO Steve Ballmer.
I think the Hilf promotion supports my stance. Maybe Hilf was TOO good to the open source community, so that is why he was changed to a position which has NOTHING to do with open source?
If Microsoft was serious about working with us, wouldnt they have kept this charismatic person as point man so at the very least he can continue to charm the tech journalists into believing that Redmond has changed its stance?
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
I agree it's a leaf rather than a branch - but it's a start. Moreover, it seems to be an unnecessary move, judging by a common reading (including mine) of the EU decision. So why did they do it?
True, we may find out the hard way in 2008, but I remain an incurable optimist.
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 27 December 2007
I wasn't suggesting that the decision was taken independently of Ballmer - he would clearly have to sign off on this kind of decision. But there are historical precedents for groups at Microsoft who can see a little more clearly than their bosses bringing the latter round.
The most famous instance is how Bill Gates was "persuaded" to grok the Internet. Initially, the company line was literally "no one is going to use this, it's too complicated" - this is what a Microsoftie told me in 1995. The future, I was told was "Blackbird" - the original incarnation of MSN.
And then one fine day, Bill Gates realised that this wasn't going to happen, that Internet was the future, and they were being left behind. But he realised this because some brave MS souls kept telling him. The result: the Pearl Harbour declaration placing the Internet at the heart of everything they did.
I see something similar happening for open source, albeit on a smaller scale - to begin with....