english revisions

svn path=/trunk/; revision=4238
This commit is contained in:
now3d 2004-07-29 08:20:40 +00:00
parent 79f44ac0f0
commit 4790775e28
3 changed files with 69 additions and 66 deletions

View File

@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
2004-07-28 Jonathan R. Grant < jg at jguk . org>
* projects/ms-vs-eu/fsfe-statement.html: English spelling revisions.
Some missing hyphens added.
* projects/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.en.xhtml: English spelling revisions.
2004-07-28 Jonathan R. Grant < jg at jguk . org>
* help/web.en.xhtml: add hyphen to co-ordination
* documents/whyweexist.en.xhtml: "organizatory" word does not exist
From context it I can see it should be "organisational", I have made
@ -20,7 +25,6 @@
is refering to specifically the U.S. DMCA and not both "american"
continents.
* news/article2001-12-17-01.en.xhtml: The term "proprietarizations" is
not in my dictionaries, or dictionary.com. It is perhaps an american
created word I believe. I revised it from ["value added"
@ -29,7 +33,6 @@
I have not revised the PDF's containing the U.S. style spellings.
* about/members.en.xhtml:
* about/legal/template-constitution.en.xhtml:
* about/legal/constitution.en.xhtml:

View File

@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
<p>10. One of the main objections of the EU Commission is Microsoft's
refusal to disclose information about the network protocols
(interfaces) necessary to achieve full interoperability with (a)
(interfaces) necessary to achieve full inter-operability with (a)
Microsoft's Active Directory Services, (b) Microsoft's version of the
Kerberos protocol, (c) Microsoft's Encrypted File System, (d)
Microsoft's Group Policies, and (e) Microsoft's Common Internet File
@ -123,12 +123,12 @@
Microsoft's protocols are designed in a highly interdependent way:
Each (proprietary) protocol depends on the correct implementation of
another (proprietary) protocol to work properly. Full functionality
and interoperability can only be achieved when <em>all</em> protocols
and inter-operability can only be achieved when <em>all</em> protocols
are known..</p>
<p>13. There are exceptions where Microsoft did disclose some of its
protocols (see <a href="#SambaInterview">Appendix C.3</a>). Some of
these cases occured where a lack of interoperability would have
these cases occurred where a lack of inter-operability would have
resulted in a loss for Microsoft. In some other cases, Microsoft
needed third-party help in order to fix a serious security hole in
one of its products..</p>
@ -176,34 +176,34 @@
<p>20. In &para;&para; 10-18, 39, 51-53, 62-70, and 94-97 of its
Response to the Second Statement of Objections, Microsoft states that
third-parties did succeed in achieving interoperability with
third-parties did succeed in achieving inter-operability with
Microsoft's server products, that the work needed to achieve this
degree of interoperability was inevitable.</p>
degree of inter-operability was inevitable.</p>
<p>21. As the developers of Samba can confirm (see <a
href="#Samba">Appendix Samba</a>), the documentation provided by
Microsoft was by no means sufficient to achieve this degree of
interoperability. Most of the information was obtained by
inter-operability. Most of the information was obtained by
reverse-engineering. As a rough estimate, about 100 man-years of work
could have been saved if the protocols had been sufficiently
documented.</p>
<p>22. Furthermore, as even Microsoft admits in &para;&para; 10-17 of
its Response to the Second Statement of Objections, existing products
of competitors (including Samba) do not interoperate seamlessly with
of competitors (including Samba) do not inter-operate seamlessly with
Microsoft's server products.</p>
<h3>3.4 Degrees of Interoperability</h3>
<p>23. According to Microsoft, this reduced (&quot;loose&quot;)
degree of interoperability is inevitable between the products of
degree of inter-operability is inevitable between the products of
different vendors due to differences in design.</p>
<p>24. There is a prominent example which demonstrates that full
(&quot;tight&quot;) interoperability is possible even between totally
(&quot;tight&quot;) inter-operability is possible even between totally
different systems of independent vendors: the Internet. The existence
of the open RfC standards allows, for instance, email clients and
servers of different vendors to interoperate seamlessly. The same
servers of different vendors to inter-operate seamlessly. The same
holds for the World Wide Web and a large variety of IP-based
services.</p>
@ -217,7 +217,7 @@
will confirm, Microsoft's software is not particularly technically
advanced. Other people can write software that is just as good, and
already do. The only benefit the complainants would get from knowing
Microsoft's interface specifications is interoperability.</p>
Microsoft's interface specifications is inter-operability.</p>
<p>27. Once in a while, Microsoft innovates. But Microsoft benefits
from the innovations of its competitors, including the Free Software
@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
<p>29. In &para;&para; 26 and 125-131, Microsoft claims that bundling
of the Windows Media Player with the operating system is justified
because mulitmedia software is a logical feature of an operating
because multimedia software is a logical feature of an operating
system.</p>
<p>30. If this were the case, the software would have appeared as a
@ -274,7 +274,7 @@
require a licensing scheme which is incompatible with that of free
software (see <a href="#Settlement">Appendix E</a>). Thus,
Microsoft's settlement in the USA still excludes free software from
access to the interfaces needed to achieve interoperability.</p>
access to the interfaces needed to achieve inter-operability.</p>
<h3>6.2 Interoperability</h3>
@ -367,7 +367,7 @@
software (called &quot;open-source software&quot; or
&quot;OSS&quot; by the author) poses a threat to Microsoft. In
particular it contains the suggestion to compete with free software
by destroying interoperability:</p>
by destroying inter-operability:</p>
<blockquote>
&quot;By extending [...] protocols and developing new protocols,
@ -376,7 +376,7 @@
<p>One instance of the method suggested here is Microsoft's refusal
to disclose the information necessary to achieve client/server and
server/server interoperability as described in the Second Statement
server/server inter-operability as described in the Second Statement
of Objections, &para;&para; 37-61.</p>
<p><a href="halloween1.html">Click here for a local copy of the
@ -454,12 +454,12 @@
system based computers over computer networks for nearly ten years
now. During this time we have had some interactions with Microsoft
management and engineers to attempt to obtain the information we
need to successfully create an interoperable product with Microsoft
need to successfully create an inter-operable product with Microsoft
Windows operating systems.</p>
<h4>Interoperating with Windows</h4>
<p>Writing software code to interoperate successfully with Windows
<p>Writing software code to inter-operate successfully with Windows
computers is a very difficult task. Note this is very different from
writing software code that runs on Windows computers. In public
relations exercises Microsoft likes to claim that all the API's
@ -506,7 +506,7 @@
monopoly run by the Bell company. Imagine the Bell company had
documented the method of sending voice signals over their telephone
lines, but not the dialing and switching protocols used to initiate
and route telephone calls. Groups attempting to make interoperable
and route telephone calls. Groups attempting to make inter-operable
telephones would then either be forced to spend significant time and
effort reverse engineering these Bell proprietary protocols, or to
license them from the Bell company. Like Microsoft, Bell would claim
@ -523,7 +523,7 @@
<p>In addition, Microsoft does not stand still in extending and
adding to these proprietary protocols in order to make the
interoperability task more difficult as time goes on.</p>
inter-operability task more difficult as time goes on.</p>
<h4>File and Print services background</h4>
@ -563,7 +563,7 @@
importantly, they reserve the right to make changes at any time and
without notice, as indeed they have done in the past. This makes the
CIFS protocol specification very different and far less useful than
the protocols standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force
the protocols standardised by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF, <a href="http://www.ietf.org">http://www.ietf.org</a> which
are true industry collaborations.</p>
@ -591,7 +591,7 @@
already had methods to provide authentication and encryption, based
on public standards (the DES encryption algorithm). Microsoft chose
to ignore this work and use a proprietary method instead, thus
making interoperability much more difficult without large amounts
making inter-operability much more difficult without large amounts
of protocol examination and on-the-wire determination.</p>
<p>With the release of Windows NT, the bar was raised to create a
@ -637,8 +637,8 @@
DCE/RPC protocol.</p>
<p>These IDL descriptions are <em>key</em> for providing
interoperability with Microsoft clients. If these IDL descriptions
were published, open and equal interoperability with Microsoft
inter-operability with Microsoft clients. If these IDL descriptions
were published, open and equal inter-operability with Microsoft
products would be greatly enhanced (although still not perfect).</p>
<p>Knowing this, the Samba Team requested these IDL definitions from
@ -659,7 +659,7 @@
the creation of Samba. Contact with Microsoft engineering staff is
generally cordial and helpful, although they are not allowed by
management to tell us the protocol details we really need to know in
order to fully interoperate. The reports we receive from companies
order to fully inter-operate. The reports we receive from companies
using Samba who are exposed to Microsoft marketing is that of extreme
hostility, to the extent of threatening retaliation if use of Samba
is discussed publicly in press releases. These reports are similar to
@ -823,7 +823,7 @@
<p>By Dr. Peter Gerwinski, FSF Europe.</p>
<p>In January 2002, I asked the developers of Samba and Samba-TNG
about their cooperation with Microsoft concerning interoperability
about their co-operation with Microsoft concerning inter-operability
of their respective products. This article is a summary of their
answers.</p>
@ -840,7 +840,7 @@
system can add itself to an Active Directory domain.</li>
<li>The small amount of documentation from Microsoft on the CIFS/SMB
protocol is completely inadequate for an interoperable
protocol is completely inadequate for an inter-operable
implementation. Without this documentation other vendors,
including the Samba Team, are forced to spend an enormous amount
of time on network reverse-engineering of basic elements of the
@ -856,12 +856,12 @@
what they are referring to is the API documentation, which is
almost completely useless for non-Windows implementations.</li>
<li>Most of the information needed to achieve interoperability was
obtained by network reverse-engeneering.</li>
<li>Most of the information needed to achieve inter-operability was
obtained by network reverse-engineering.</li>
<li>In many cases, Microsoft creates complex protocols that make
network reverse-engeneering difficult. It considers the
protocols its own private property and refuses to cooperate with
network reverse-engineering difficult. It considers the
protocols its own private property and refuses to co-operate with
other vendors on standardisation, especially when non-Windows
platforms are involved.</li>
@ -881,25 +881,25 @@
<ul>
<li>In July 1997, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton followed the
guidelines as outlined in 90/EC/250 &quot;to obtain information by
means other than reverse-engeneering&quot;. He has been asking
means other than reverse-engineering&quot;. He has been asking
Microsoft for the necessary information to obtain
interoperability for two months. He got no reply. </li>
inter-operability for two months. He got no reply. </li>
<li>In early 2000 he asked Microsoft for the information necessary
to obtain interoperability with Windows 2000 Domains. The reply
to obtain inter-operability with Windows 2000 Domains. The reply
was that this information will definitely not be made available.</li>
<li>Consequently, most of the information published in the book was
obtained by network reverse-engeneering.</li>
obtained by network reverse-engineering.</li>
<li>This network reverse-engeneering brought some security holes in
<li>This network reverse-engineering brought some security holes in
Windows NT to light which were reported to Microsoft. As a
result of the security fixes, the information obtained by
network reverse-engeneering was no longer true. In order to find
out the new specifications needed to gain back interoperability,
network reverse-engineering was no longer true. In order to find
out the new specifications needed to gain back inter-operability,
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton had <em>again</em> to follow the
90/EC/250 guidelines, and finally had <em>again</em> to obtain
the information by network reverse-engeneering.</li>
the information by network reverse-engineering.</li>
<li>In one exceptional case, Microsoft itself was in need of an
upgrade to Samba and gave the developers some information which
@ -907,9 +907,9 @@
<li>The protocols designed by Microsoft are highly dependent on each
other. They form five levels of - all undocumented - protocols
which are <em>all</em> needed to get seamless interoperation. In
which are <em>all</em> needed to get seamless inter-operation. In
other words: Microsoft's protocols are designed to make
interoperation difficult.</li>
inter-operation difficult.</li>
</ul>
@ -1079,7 +1079,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
lawyers off my back, let's just call it a rumor, and only use it as a
basis for discussion. To be perfectly clear, I am not claiming that
the following is true - just that I have heard it from more than one
source, and think it accurately characterizes some past behaviors of
source, and think it accurately characterises some past behaviors of
Microsoft. Perhaps by bringing it into the light, we can ensure that
Redmond takes a more thoughtful course. I certainly hope it is
wrong.</p>
@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
child pornographers. They want all connections, all packets to be
traceable. Say goodbye to TCP/IP and to anonymous connections of any
kind. Hello to Hailstorm, tracking everything down to the last mile,
and a more business-friendly Internet with prioritized
and a more business-friendly Internet with prioritised
packet-handling. If this seems like too much infrastructure to
change, it isn't. Not if the old protocol has been rendered useless
and the new one can be implemented by an upgrade to your router.
@ -1141,11 +1141,11 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
<p>But won't the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) stop it from
happening? No. The entire basis for setting standards on the Internet
is to first put the new code in service, and then seek
standardization. There are no IETF rules that say 100 million plus
standardisation. There are no IETF rules that say 100 million plus
computers can't run TCP/MS, and there is no deadline for
standardization. Once the right 100 million plus computers are
standardisation. Once the right 100 million plus computers are
running the new protocol, Microsoft won't have any reason to seek
standardization. Why not? It is Possible, for awhile, to run more
standardisation. Why not? It is Possible, for awhile, to run more
than one protocol at a time. Take as examples of the coexistence of
IPX and IP in Netware systems, or AppleTalk and IP in MacOS systems.
Business will push for the new protocol, and the result will be that
@ -1156,7 +1156,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
support in the next shipping version of Windows, with the possible
bonus of blaming any problems on UNIX code later.</p>
<p>If business feels a need for the ability to have prioritized
<p>If business feels a need for the ability to have prioritised
packet Delivery, and government (plus the Recording Industry
Association of America) is uncomfortable with the notion of
untraceable packets and connections, of course Microsoft is going to
@ -1197,18 +1197,18 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for Windows
XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment to the
Court, Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and OEMs,
for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating
for the sole purpose of inter-operating with a Windows Operating
System Product, via the Microsoft Developer Network
(&quot;MSDN&quot;) or similar mechanisms, the APIs and related
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to inter-operate
with a Windows Operating System Product.
</blockquote>
<p>The &quot;sole purpose&quot; requirement means that Microsoft does
not have to make any such API information available to developers of
software like WINE whose purpose it is to make a non-Microsoft OS
interoperable with applications written for Windows. This therefore
excludes all measures to assist GNU/Linux to interoperate with
inter-operable with applications written for Windows. This therefore
excludes all measures to assist GNU/Linux to inter-operate with
applications written for Windows, which would provide maximum
competition in the OS market, which should be the objective of a
competition-law remedy.</p>
@ -1218,12 +1218,12 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
<blockquote>
Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed Final
Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use by
third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows
third parties, for the sole purpose of inter-operating with a Windows
Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms
(consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol that
is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the
Court, (i) implemented in a Windows Operating System Product
installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate
installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to inter-operate
natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the client
or server operating system products) with Windows 2000 Server or
products marketed as its successors installed on a server computer.
@ -1261,7 +1261,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
that Non-Microsoft Middleware Product);</p>
<p>
3. an ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or OEM's rights may be
conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or sublicensing its
conditioned on its not assigning, transferring or sub-licensing its
rights under any license granted under this provision;</p>
<p>
4. the terms of any license granted under this section are in all
@ -1287,7 +1287,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
&quot;reasonable and nondiscriminatory&quot; licensing, means only
certain wealthy developers would be entitled to Microsoft API
information. Sub (2) repeats that no license will be given to any
information for purposes except interoperability with Microsoft
information for purposes except inter-operability with Microsoft
OSs. Sub (3) means that Microsoft can use licenses which prohibit
implementing any of their APIs in GPL'd software, because they can
refuse to permit any relicensing to downstream users, which GPL
@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would
compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication
systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens
systems, including without limitation, keys, authorisation tokens
or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other
information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed
not to do so by a governmental agency of competent
@ -1316,7 +1316,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API,
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms,
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual
authentication/authorisation security, or third party intellectual
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation
@ -1333,7 +1333,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
of the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Because the phrase &quot;authentication/authorization
<p>Because the phrase &quot;authentication/authorisation
security&quot; is so broad, Microsoft can refuse to give any
developer of &quot;Middleware&quot; meant to secure inter-operation
of free software with .NET any information whatever, or condition
@ -1361,7 +1361,7 @@ Why the Age of Internet Innocence is Over</a></h2>
<timestamp>
Last update:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2004-07-23 09:02:47 $ $Author: smaffulli $
$Date: 2004-07-29 08:20:40 $ $Author: now3d $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</timestamp>
</html>

View File

@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ field. Also Free Software, and in particular the GNU/Linux operating
system, was cited by Microsoft as its principal competitor, therefore
FSF Europe had a direct interest in defending it. In a <a
href="application-1.0.pdf">letter</a> to the DG Competition dated 16
November 2001, FSFE asked to be heared.</p>
November 2001, FSFE asked to be heard.</p>
<p>The request was accepted and therefore the team members and legals
of FSF Europe had access to the confidential information and had the
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ the Commission is asking Microsoft to give up copyright on parts of
their source code or license to everybody its patents on the protocols
and interfaces they have developed or even give up some valuable
"trade secrets". An even bigger problem with the
Decision is that it allows Microsoft to use socalled "RAND"
Decision is that it allows Microsoft to use so-called "RAND"
(Reasonable And Not Discriminatory) licenses. As repeated often, the
RAND clauses for using patented interfaces or protocols actually
discriminate Free Software implementations since, however cheap those
@ -68,15 +68,15 @@ licenses can be, they add a limit to the free distribution of software
(making it non-free).</p>
<p>In the end, FSF Europe believes that Microsoft should reveal all
information necessary to achieve complete interoperation with its
information necessary to achieve complete inter-operation with its
systems, be it the Media Player or the Directory Service. To achieve
this it is not necessary to disclose source code developed by
Microsoft, it is not necessary to reveal "trade secrets" as protocols
and interfaces are already 'public' (since they can be reverse
engineered) but it is unconvenient to use them. It is extremely
engineered) but it is inconvenient to use them. It is extremely
important that the DG Competition guards the market and also avoids
that software patents are legalised in Europe, so that Free Software
implementations of those interfaces will always be possible.</p>
implementations of those interfaces will always be possible.</p>
<!-- End page content -->