Microsoft out to steal all your Docker?
-
New community features for Google Chat and an update on Currents
.png)
Note: This blog post outlines upcoming changes to Google Currents for Workspace users. For information on the previous deprecation of Googl...
Text :
Why Docker on Ubuntu is a Microsoft legal trap!
Seems, Microsoft silently is polluting Linux community with software, that comes with a problematic license term for enterprises.
core/release-notes/2.2/preview/2.2.0-preview2.md at main · dotnet/core
.NET news, announcements, release notes, and more! - dotnet/core
Here, nothing really seems suspicious. But many Docker images contain #Powershell, that makes heavily use of DOTNETCORE 2.0 and Microsoft's Joselyn C# .NET compiler. Looking a its license still nothing suspicious. But there is a second, hidden license agreement, called PATENTS.TXT:
corefx/PATENTS.TXT at master · dotnet/corefx
This repo is used for servicing PR's for .NET Core 2.1 and 3.1. Please visit us at https://github.com/dotnet/runtime - dotnet/corefx
And this file then reveals a problematic term:
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in any claim in a lawsuit alleging direct or contributory patent infringement by any Covered Code, or inducement of patent infringement by any Covered Code, then your rights under this promise will automatically terminate."
Means: If you or your company owns patents and you or your company then decides to accuse Microsoft for patent infringement, you automatically lose the right to use .NET programs, such as Powershell and Docker images containing Powershell code, modules.
You then immediately have to take down all your Docker based software and to stop all C# / .NET programs in your enterprise.
Logical conclusion: Never, ever run #Powershell, #CLR, #DOTNETCORE, #MONO, #Docker images in your company. It's a legal trojan horse. Same, btw. for Facebook's REACT. Use pREACT instead!
Have fun!
-
@Tsaukpaetra Bullshit. You lose access to .NET Core if you file patent infringement against .NET Core. That seems perfectly reasonable. But yes let's all wharrgarbl over this because evil evil Micro$oft.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Microsoft out to steal all your Docker?:
Logical conclusion: Never, ever run ... #Docker images in your company.
I see no problem here?
Let Microsoft take all the Dockers. Good riddance.
-
@pie_flavor It's the same as with the hubbub where a bunch of people got their panties in a knot because React included something similar.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Microsoft out to steal all your Docker?:
Microsoft's Joselyn C# .NET compiler
Have they changed the name of the compiler? Given their track record I honestly can't tell if that's only a typo.
-
@Zecc No, it's still Roslyn.
-
@pie_flavor said in Microsoft out to steal all your Docker?:
@Tsaukpaetra Bullshit. You lose access to .NET Core if you file patent infringement against .NET Core. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Does it? Why should protecting my rights block me from benefiting from the contributions of the community?
But yes let's all wharrgarbl over this because evil evil Micro$oft.
It is pretty evil. It's pretty much blackmail. "Don't even think about protecting the patents we've stolen from you and put in use here, or else you we'll take away the core foundation block of your entire ecosystem."
-
IANAL, but why does it feel like whoever posted that didn't actually read it correctly? Yes, there is that paragraph that says your rights under their promise is terminated by claiming patent infringement against them, but the same file also says what that promise is (emphasis added):
Microsoft Corporation and its affiliates ("Microsoft") promise not to assert any .NET Patents against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or distributing Covered Code, as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime.
So, the promise looks to be that Microsoft won't seek to assert their patents (i.e. receive compensation for use of their patents) against you as long as you don't try to claim they're infringing on patents.
To throw a wrench into the "Micro$oft iz ebil!!1" mindset, here's part of Red Hat's patent promise (emphasis added):
To the extent a party makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, imports, or otherwise transfers Covered FOSS, Red Hat agrees not to use such actions as a basis for enforcing its patents against the party ("Our Promise"), subject to the limitations herein. Our Promise extends to combinations with such Covered FOSS if the claimed invention is substantially embodied in the Covered FOSS portion of a combination and if all other portions of the combination are merely enabling or general-purpose technologies or practices. For clarity, Our Promise does not extend to hardware by itself or other non-Covered FOSS by itself. Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim).
My reading of that has Red Hat as the same level of evil as Microsoft.
-
@ChaosTheEternal Red Hat's is arguably worse - Microsoft is at least scoping it to the relevant patents; you can sue them for other ones without losing your rights to the Covered Work. And if you do sue them for using your patents in the Covered Work, you just lose the rights to use Microsoft's patents in the Covered Work going forward. There's no retroactive charge for using Microsoft's patents.
Red Hat, if you sue them regarding their use of any patent, they're free to sue you for licensing fees for all works they hold the copyright to, covering both past and future use.
-
@ChaosTheEternal said in Microsoft out to steal all your Docker?:
IANAL, but why does it feel like whoever posted that didn't actually read it correctly? Yes, there is that paragraph that says your rights under their promise is terminated by claiming patent infringement against them, but the same file also says what that promise is (emphasis added):
Microsoft Corporation and its affiliates ("Microsoft") promise not to assert any .NET Patents against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, or distributing Covered Code, as part of either a .NET Runtime or as part of any application designed to run on a .NET Runtime.
So, the promise looks to be that Microsoft won't seek to assert their patents (i.e. receive compensation for use of their patents) against you as long as you don't try to claim they're infringing on patents.
Which just makes it all worse because you won't be pursued just for license infringement - you'll also be pursued for infringements of all patents that MS has, deliberately or otherwise, made use of when writing their open source code! Also, it flies in the face of the entire open source philosophy - that code should be freely accessible to everyone - and turns it into regular trade transaction: our patents for your patents. It's also a quite major concern for any company that holds any valuable patents that Microsoft might make a use of. Even if not a deal breaker, it's definitely something everyone considering basing their tech stack on .Net should be aware of - similar to how everyone is aware of the consequences of using GPL software. So even if it's not necessarily a wrong practice, it's still worth to make a fuss about it.
To throw a wrench into the "Micro$oft iz ebil!!1" mindset, here's part of Red Hat's patent promise (emphasis added):
To the extent a party makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, imports, or otherwise transfers Covered FOSS, Red Hat agrees not to use such actions as a basis for enforcing its patents against the party ("Our Promise"), subject to the limitations herein. Our Promise extends to combinations with such Covered FOSS if the claimed invention is substantially embodied in the Covered FOSS portion of a combination and if all other portions of the combination are merely enabling or general-purpose technologies or practices. For clarity, Our Promise does not extend to hardware by itself or other non-Covered FOSS by itself. Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim).
My reading of that has Red Hat as the same level of evil as Microsoft.
They are indeed. They're also double assholes for dropping the responsibility for checking that their code doesn't infringe anyone else's patents on you:
A party relying on Our Promise acknowledges that Our Promise is not an assurance that Red Hat's patents are enforceable or that practicing Red Hat's patented inventions does not infringe others’ patents or other intellectual property. Red Hat is not liable to a party relying on Our Promise for related claims brought by another based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise.
