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

[Barry Fitzgerald]

The prior message was horribly mangled.  I cleaned it up a bit.

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

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