Author Archives: Groklaw
Groklaw: The End of the Patry Copyright Blog
William Patry has shuttered his blog, The Patry Copyright Blog. The archives are gone too. He tells why in a final post. It’s a tragedy, nothing less.
No, no one at Google made him do it. He did it for a couple of reasons, both of which resonate with me, and I think they are important to highlight. I must warn you, it’s a bit depressing. Here are the reasons:
1. The Inability or Refusal to Accept the Blog for What it is: A Personal Blog
2. The Current State of Copyright Law is too depressing
But it’s in the details that the story is told. Continue reading
Groklaw: The France Shift From No to Abstain — HP helped Microsoft France do it
Here’s the scoop from Les Echos.fr on France’s sudden change from its No vote to Abstain. Microsoft France’s President Eric Boustouller sent AFNOR a letter [PDF] in French, of course. He tells a tale about OOXML and ODF progressing side by side and how if OOXML is approved, a group will be working hard to make the two more interoperable. Attached was a an HP statement of support for OOXML. HP sings the same song. And AFNOR?
“A la lumière des contributions et des commentaires, il nous est apparu qu’une “Désapprobation” n’était plus justifiée. Pour autant, il demeure encore des incertitudes sur les textes et les engagements, ce qui nous a conduit à nous prononcer par une “Abstention”", a expliqué dans un message électronique samedi Tony Hittema, directeur technique de l’Afnor.
That’s saying that in light of the new information, it seemed to them that disapprove was not justified. But neither was a Yes vote, because there remain issues with OOXML. So that’s why they did it. Continue reading
Groklaw: ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out – Updated
The ISO folk have put out a press release about how wonderful the BRM worked out and what happens next. However, it tells us little people to stay out. Here’s the operative language:
The BRM was not intended to be a public event but followed the orderly and inclusive process of ISO and IEC. With the BRM review completed, it is now up to national bodies to determine whether approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 is warranted.
So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they have not, and I know they have not.
So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and they don’t all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?
Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the BRM meeting? Continue reading
Groklaw: OOXML Fails to Get Majority Approval at BRM – Updated 3Xs
Andy Updegrove has the results in detail here, including a breakdown of the votes. Basically, there were too many proposed changes to be able to cover them in the BRM, so they tried a workaround, but the upshot is … it’s a mess. Oddly, despite the rules, Alex Brown, Updegrove reports, allowed non P countries to vote, but OOXML still couldn’t get a majority of the delegations to back it at the BRM. Nor is it clear that allowing non P countries to vote is even legitimate. Now it’s the 30-day voting period, but Updegrove asks, if they never could discuss all the issues, which is the purpose of a BRM, what’s the basis for a vote? And with the vast majority either voting to abstain or even refusing to vote as a protest, I think one may conclude this proposal didn’t belong on the fast track, and it isn’t getting the kind of support you would have thought it might, given all the muscle that has gone into the push to get OOXML approved. Continue reading
Samba Team Receives Microsoft Protocol Documentation -Updated 2Xs
The Protocol Freedom Information Foundation has just signed an agreement with Microsoft to receive the protocol documentation needed to fully interoperate with the Microsoft Windows workgroup server products and to make them available to Samba and other Free Software projects. Here’s a podcast where Samba’s Jeremy Allison explains the news to Don Marti of LinuxWorld.
No. This isn’t a bit like the Novell-Microsoft agreements. This is for access to Microsoft’s protocols, as ordered by the EU Commission and agreed to by Microsoft. It’s a good thing, in my opinion, and the Samba guys worked really hard to make this as good as it gets. Note that it’s a copyright agreement, with no per-copy royalties, not a patent licensing, but there’s a list of patents. Samba has not agreed to license them. Rather it will avoid them, and with a list of them provided by Microsoft, they can and so can you. There is no acknowledgment of them by Samba, no money paid for them, nothing. This is what Novell and others could have done, and thanks to Samba, everyone is a bit freer today.
Here’s the press release, and two articles that explain a bit about how it came to be and what the agreement contains, both written by Andrew Tridgell, the creator of Samba. And here is the agreement [PDF] itself. Note that a Delaware corporation was formed for the purpose, The Protocol Freedom Information Foundation, and it is the licensee. So it can provide “detailed documentation on Microsoft protocols to developers in the free software community under non-disclosure terms, while still allowing for the development of free software under open licenses, including the GNU General Public License”. That means, as Tridgell puts it, “Writing code which interoperates with Microsoft operating systems just got a lot easier.” First, the press release, then the history, then the contents of the agreement explained from Tridge’s perspective, how he understands the agreement. And he even provides a redline version [PDF], so you can see the original agreement Microsoft proposed and all the changes that ensued.
Update: There’s a Microsoft reaction in this Reuters article, Microsoft signs rare open-source deal, under EU orders. They are “pleased”.
Update 2: Carlo Piana, one of the attorneys involved on the Samba side, has now commented on the agreement on his blog, Law is Freedom, explaining it, and providing this information: “The total number of pages of which the documentation is made is 14820.” Continue reading