Modify Colors
Posts in Legal
No OSS on the iPhone: No More Than a Mistake
With the iPhone SDK starting to appear, a Linux.com article summarizes the concerns of the free software community: the licensing you have to agree to in order to use the iPhone SDK essentially prevent open-source applications. Although I agree this is unacceptable, I see no reason to believe this is anything more than a mistake.
For one thing, what does Apple have to gain from not allowing open-source apps on the iPhone? I suppose that theoretically they could prevent people from seeing the power of open-source and therefor continuing the FUD around Linux… Seriously, you think that outweighs all the bad press they will get?
Another thing: in the past few weeks, we have seen not one but two cases of a bad EULA (end-user license agreement) being pointed out and the company apologizing for it. One was the Photoshop Express EULA that stated that Adobe could use pictures you uploaded for whatever they wanted without your permission. The other was Apple’s own EULA on Safari for Windows which said you could not use it on anything but a Mac. What we are seeing now is most likely nothing more than another instance of a company not thinking carefully enough about their EULA or reusing standard parts and accidentally messing things up.
This is not to say people should not talk about the issues around OSS on the iPhone. It is important that this is brought to the attention of Apple, but I am confident this is no more than a mistake. I just hope Apple does not ignore the open-source communtiy.
Are Best Buy's Eee PC Prices Correct?
Recently Best Buy posted a price for the upcoming Windows XP Eee PC on their website. The price is $399, the same as an Eee PC with Linux and the same hardware. What is wrong with that? Lots! You can read my full post on this subject for more details, but the very short summary of what is wrong with pricing the Windows Eee PC the same as the Linux one is that either Asus or Microsoft is absorbing the cost of Windows. If Asus is absorbing the cost, it is not their business to determine the pricing of other operating systems or if Microsoft is pressuring Asus to absorb the cost, that is almost certainly anti-competitive, and if Microsoft is absorbing the cost itself, that too is almost certainly anti-competitive. (Not that I am a lawyer.)
So basically, if the otherwise identical Windows version and Linux version cost the same, I will be furious and you will almost certainly be seeing more about it here in the future.
You may be wondering why I am not already furious. After all, hasn’t Best Buy confirmed the price is the same? (Best Buy’s page for the Windows version, Linux version) The reason is that I do not trust the numbers on the Best Buy site for two reasons.
First, the picture on the Windows page shows the Linux interface and the Linux page shows a blue screen of death. (Really just a blue screen without the death part.) Second, and much less significantly, the Linux version has an offer for a deal to save $10 on Norton 360, a security product for Windows.
For these two reasons, it is possibly nothing more than a mistake made by Best Buy. So until the pricing is confirmed, I will withold judgment.
EU Not Impressed By Microsoft's Words, Wants Action
The EU seems to think Red Hat got it right on Microsoft’s press release (which was about interoperability, read more here) yesterday. According to Linux Insider, the EU has said that, while they would appreciate “any move towards genuine interoperability,” they have seen similar statements from Microsoft in the past and they will not be impressed until Microsoft really does something. Additionally, the EU stated that Microsoft’s recent action “does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past.”
That is a lot of bad news for Microsoft, which was presumably hoping to get the EU off their backs with their recent press release. It looks like the EU will not go easy on Microsoft in their current investigations no matter what and unless Microsoft really does what they said they would, it looks like the EU will continue to keep the pressure on Microsoft.
The real question now is what Microsoft will do next. There are basically two options for Microsoft, really do what they said or deal with the EU in some other way. Or else they could just send some expensive laptops the way of the EU courts… 
Microsoft Pledges to be Open-Source Friendly, Red Hat is Skeptical
Earlier today Microsoft announced plans to increase interoperability and be more friendly to open-source software, but, as Red Hat points out, it is just a press release and does not guarantee that everything they say will happen will happen soon, or ever. After years of pressure from the European Union (EU), Microsoft has announced that they will not sue non-commercial open-source developers, make efforts to improve interoperability, and publish APIs for many of their products meaning, for example, that plugins for additional formats in Office could be added.
All of this sounds great, but as Red Hat’s responce to Microsoft’s statement points out, “we’ve heard similar announcements before, almost always strategically timed for other effect. Red Hat regards this most recent announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism.” Although I would like to think Microsoft was truly planning on being more friendly to open-source software, I just cannot help thinking that Red Hat is right. Until Microsoft really does what they say they will do, it is just a publicity stunt to get the EU off their backs. I just hope they really do follow through.
It seems like everyone is talking about Barracuda, Trend Micro, ClamAV, and what it has to do with open-source. The whole issue is made complicated mostly because of a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that the two companies have been throwing at each other. In fact, it is getting hard to tell who is right and who is wrong through all the FUD.
At the bottom of all this is Trend Micro’s patent on an implementation of anti-virus software on servers. The details of this are not important, but for anyone who is curious, here is what Ars Technica says about the patent:
“Trend Micro claims that its US Patent 5,623,600 broadly covers the concept of server-based antivirus software on FTP and SMTP gateways.”
Trend Micro has already sued both Symantec and McAfee over allegedly infringing on this patent. Both companies choose to settle out of court, rather than fight an expensive court case. When Trend Micro sued Barracuda, an enterprise-level security company that uses the open-source anti-virus software ClamAV in their products, however, Barracuda decided to fight the case, rather than settle with Trend Micro.
Although things could change a lot between now and when the case is decided, Ars Technica (look for the heading “The search for prior art”) points out that Barracuda has fairly convincing evidence that this implementation of anti-virus software was used before Trend Micro got their patent.
Beyond this, the FUD starts. Barracuda frames this case as an attack on open-source and ClamAV and is attempting to gather support from FOSS supporters and even asking for people to contribute examples of prior art. Trend Micro denies that this case has anything to do with open-source or ClamAV, saying that they are simply protecting their patent and what anti-virus software is being used is not important. At the same time, however, Trend Micro refused to comment on their views on enforcing this patent on non-commercial use or on other open-source projects, according to Linux.com.
Whether or not this case is an attack on open-source, it seems to be a case of patent trolling and if Trend Micro’s patent is considered invalid, it would set a good precedent.
JVC The Latest to be Cought in the Microsoft Patent Deal Scam
It appears that JVC is the latest company to sign a “patent deal” with Microsoft, according to Information Week. Although the terms of these “patent deals,” which Microsoft has made with a number of companies including Novell, Linspire, Xandros, Samsung, LG, are unclear, it appears that these deals are basically an agreement that Microsoft will not sue the company and its customers for using Linux, which Microsoft says it can do because Linux, according to Microsoft, infringes on 42 of its patents, which it will not name. You would think that this would be a simple issue of either the applicable teams fixing the problem(s) or a court case, but instead of allowing this to happen, Microsoft is refusing to tell anyone which of its patents it believes Linux infringes on, making it impossible for anyone to know if these patents even exist.
Since the first patent deal, which was between Microsoft and Novell, these deals have not received enough attention. It seems to almost not be news that Microsoft has collected more money from another company through a scare tactic. If Microsoft truly has important patents which Linux clearly infringes on, it would be in their best interest to revel them so that these companies know that they have to pay Microsoft money in order to avoid a very expensive law suit. This basically means that Microsoft either does not have the patents they keep talking about, the patents are on things that are so small they could be fixed before a law suit got started, or it is ambiguous if Linux really infringes on the patents. Whatever it is, Microsoft is essentially playing the big bully and making companies pay them just because they can.
What Really Matters About Samba Getting Microsoft Documentation
After the EU required Microsoft to share some of their documentation on printer/file sharing in 2004 and losing their appeal in September 2007, Microsoft finally got around to doing it, according to ZDNet. The Samba project gave Microsoft almost $15,000 for the documentation they needed from Microsoft to ensure interoperability with Windows on printer and file sharing, which will be given to them through the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation. Samba is the project that makes file and printer sharing with Windows computers possible.
Although it is frustrating that Microsoft cannot just make the required documentation available, now that the Samba team does have the documentation and is allowed to release the code they write based on it so other projects can use their implementation (the documentation itself will remain confidential), the important thing is that from now on Samba and other open-source projects will be able to create software that is fully compatible with Microsoft software.
Further Reading: Samba News Story, CNET News Story
Following Ubuntu and Red Hat, Mandriva has said they will not pay money to Microsoft to be protected from unnamed patents, reports Linux Insider. Starting with Novell, Microsoft has convinced a number of companies to pay in exchange for an agreement that Microsoft will not sue them over certain patents.
Microsoft will not revel which patents they believe Linux is infringing on, which has lead many companies, such as Mandriva, and individuals to doubt that there is any real infringement on Microsoft patents. Because most Linux users believe that Microsoft does not really have a case against Linux, Novell and other companies (Xandros, Linspire, and even Samsung) that have paid Microsoft are frequently criticized, which could be another factor in Mandriva’s decision to decline the deal.
The GPL v3 news is back again. This time the argument is if it is being adopted by open-source projects fast enough. Basically, according to a Linux.com article, some groups are saying that the adoptions of GPL v3 is too slow, but the people from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) are saying that the rate of adoption is just fine. (Anyone reminded of Vista? Microsoft says its doing well, but not everyone agress.)
I have to side with the FSF people. GPL v2 was released a long time ago, so you really can’t compare the adoption of GPL v3 to anything else. The bigger question, though, is does it matters at all to the average open-source software user?
(Note: I am not stating any opinion (because I don’t have one) about GPL v3.)
Just after Redhat stated that they do not believe Linux violates any patents, they got sued (Slashdot) over this patent, which covers workspaces. I am not making any prediction.