Microsoft Pushes Slashdot's Buttons
Once again, Slashdot.org is raging against the Microsoft machine. This time, it's personal.
First, some background. Microsoft developed its own version of Kerberos, a security system that authenticates users' identities, for inclusion in Windows 2000. Nodding to Kerberos' open-source roots, Microsoft posted its Kerberos code on the Web a few weeks ago. But this wasn't a classically open-source move; users had to run a licensing agreement that included some non-disclosure rules. Slashdot users picked up on the license and the proprietary nature of some parts of Microsoft's Kerberos and posted links to the code, along with information on how to bypass the licensing agreement.
Microsoft was not amused. It asked Slashdot to remove 11 messages that it said were illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the same act being used to nail Napster). Slashdot cried censorship and refused to take the messages down. "We are not happy about this, to say the least," said a Slashdot post by Robin Miller, editor-in-chief of Slashdot parent company Andover.net. "But instead of reflexively going into rant mode, we are calmly posting the full text of the e-mail we got from Microsoft, along with our initial response to it, so that you can see what news and community Web sites like Slashdot are up against, now that the DMCA has become law." The calm was impressive, but not exactly shared by most Slashdot users.
In the midst of the thousand-post scuffle, according to a Wired News scoop e-mailed by Slashdot founder Rob Malda, Slashdot got hit by a distributed denial of service attack. How's that for timing?
Wired's Declan McCullagh also did a good job of explaining why Microsoft's letter stepped on so many toes. "(I)t includes a generous helping of everything (Slashdot users) love to hate: Microsoft, lawyers and the DMCA," he wrote. Microsoft had also added proprietary extensions to Kerberos to make Windows 2000's version incompatible with other platforms, and the controversial license agreement came in a Windows .exe file. And, as Salon's Andrew Leonard put it, "Asking Slashdot to remove posts is like asking a hacker to cut off his or her own hands." Basically, Microsoft offended Slashdot in every way possible, short of sending Bill Gates to throw a pie in Rob Malda's face.
Microsoft claims its request was an act of copyright protection, not censorship. "We have no problems with the comments on this technology - in fact, we encourage them," said MS spokesperson Adam Sohn. But if you want the code, Microsoft wants you to get it from them - along with the licensing agreement. The Linux-friendly Brits at The Register grudgingly admitted, for perhaps the first time, that Microsoft had a point. Microsoft's proprietary Kerberos extensions are subject to copyright rules, "and the draconian DMCA makes the distributor liable for the copyright violation, and its resultant harm to the copyright holder," wrote Annie Kermath. "No matter how ugly it looks, Microsoft is within its legal rights to make the request."
It's all irrelevant if a certain DOJ request gets accepted by Judge Jackson, added The Register. That particular remedy would force Microsoft to give third parties access to its source code. We bet Judge Jackson will give that measure a little more thought in the wake of the Slashdot uproar. Microsoft might wind up wishing it had kept its source open - or its mouth shut. - Jen Muehlbauer