Craig Mundie/Dave Stutz at O'Reilly conference (was: [DotGNU]Authentication against Microsoft's "Passport" system?)

[Barry Fitzgerald]

from http://doc.weblogs.com/  (Aka Doc Searls weblog):

---Begin Quote---
                                 Clay: the number of times software is running 
on another box is
going to explode. The
                                 meta issue in an ecosystem is
interoperabiolty, not merely open sourcel I[m more
                                 concerned about open interfaces than
about source behind those interfvaces, which are
                                 not always exposed. My question is
about hailstorm. It's fine to see hailstorm runningn
                                 on multiple end points. Mac. Can I use
a hailstorm schema allow contact between a palm
                                 and a linux server without workijng
through a Microsoft schema?

                              
                                 Dave: we always come from a customer
perspective. If customers want that, we'll do it. It
                                 will happen. 

                              
                                 Michael: But by then everybody else is
dead.

                              
                                 Clay: Not true with device classes
where mictosoft doesnt; have a monoply. Can I have
                                 a yes no on a hailstorm transaction
without phoning home to microsoft. 

                              
                                 Dave: I'll say yes. But a caveat: if
hailstorm is widely successful, it is highly likely that the
                                 palm will want to (obtain microsoft
authoentication).

                              
                                 Clay: Choice or requirement? I hear you
saying choice.

                              
                                 Craig: The API was the protocol and
schema of an operating sytem. But we couldn't
                                 depend on everything happening in one
machine. That wasn't the right model. YOu
                                 needed loosely coupled systems, broadly
defined. Data is not akin to apis. Microsoft has
                                 always published APIs. Once we pubolish
protocols and schmeas along with APIs, I
                                 see no reason why...

---End Quote---

What this tells us is that Microsoft may be tipping their hand...

The hailstorm/.Net passport interface may be flexible enough to allow
for authentication to other parties who are compatible with their API. 
Note the key phrases "if the customers want that" and "it is highly
likely that the palm will want to (obtain microsoft authoentication)."

If Doc Searls transcription is to be used as a reference, they spent a
lot of time playing to the crowd.  However, they danced around this
issue just like Bill Gates danced on the stand.  But, they're indicating
the above and - if it's true - it's probably good news for us...

there was another quote that caught me:

---Begin Quote---


                                 "Just a sysadmin" with the EFF: The
only thing that seems free any more is the free
                                 speech, software and internet
community. It seems to me that your community has taken
                                 a hostage in Dimitri for (exercizing
free speech). 

                              
                                 Somebody from the crowd: "Did Microsoft
lobby for the DMCA."

                              
                                 Tim: Does microsoft like the DMCA?

                              
                                 Craig: There are things we like about
it and don;'t like about it. Like hyou.

                              
                                 Tim: There's nothing I like about it.

---End Quote---

So, there are things that Microsoft representatives don't like about the
DMCA.  Tony, this is why I CC'ed this to you.  I need a legal opinion
here.  Copyleft uses copyright against the proprietary industry.  The
DMCA (As crappy as it is) is designed to protect the interests of
copyright holders.  If Microsoft execs don't like something in the DMCA,
is there something that we can use in the DMCA to shield ourselves from
potential Microsoft attacks?

        -Barry


Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> Zimran Ahmed <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > >     DotGNU is to .NET, as Linux is to Windows.  If you like
> > >     Linux, then you will love DotGNU.
> >
> > this would not be quite true though. Linux is a competitor to windows.
> > Depending on how DotGNU and .NET ends up being implemented, anything
> > using that architecture could still have to go through servers in Redmond
> > (as it is currently described, authentication from .NET *has* to come
> > from Microsoft).
> 
> That will definately not be true for DotGNU.
> 
> DotGNU will support multiple bytecode formats; one of them will
> be Microsoft's IL.  While on Microsoft platforms, IL-based
> Portable Executables may be hard-coded to use Microsoft's
> "Passport" authentication system, on the DotGNU platform the end
> user will at least have the option to override that.  In fact I
> personally think that the way to go will be to officially declare
> Microsoft's "Passport" authentication system to be *evil* and
> boycott it altogether.  I think that we should instead make it
> easy for vendors of proprietary software to support an
> alternative, non-centralized authentication system so that their
> software will run on the DotGNU platform.