Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#51

Post by snarkinatree »

How about "Skype: The Missing Technical Manual"?

MS will contribute nothing to the state of the art of free voice and video calls over the internet. As is so often the case, what they purchased with the Skype deal was a user base. One that they could never obtain with the own products.

There is a way to do this without violating copyright.

Do not waste time duplicating the P2P element of Skype (the P2P protocol). P2P protocols have been done, several ways, some of them are easily good enough, maybe even smarter than Skype's (e.g., avoiding the exposure of your IP to the entire internet) and enough of the code is GPL'd or BSD licensed to keep things open. We have ample solutions for P2P. View that as the "open platform".

Now you need "apps" to run on it. First one is a softphone, but with Skype's codecs.

Focus on creating a standalone softphone using Skype's codecs.

Does MS have exclusive rights (patent rights) on Skype's codecs? Not even close. They did not develop them. The patent license could fit on a single page; it's as simple as they come: build stuff, pay nothing.

http://developer.skype.com/silk

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#52

Post by cooldeal »

Iv wrote: post #49
aGHz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term "clean room" has a well established meaning you probably aren't aware of, I refer you to [1], it might clear up what the original reply was referring to. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

I am well aware of the joke that is the clean-room process. Note that it supposes that the first team has access to the specification, source code, or any IP-encumbered indication about how the software in question works. In the case of Skype, the only public information we have is the binary.

>Note that it supposes that the first team has access to the specification, source code, or any IP-encumbered indication about how the software in question works. In the case of Skype, the only public information we have is the binary.

So what? That's not a valid excuse to distribute modified binaries to the public. If the "first" team wants to look at binaries to do their documentation, they can download the official Skype client from skype.com. Why do they need to download a hacked binary from Github?

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#53

Post by recoiledsnake »

Iv wrote: post #48
e1ven wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If team A uses the binary to write a spec, and team B uses the spec to re-implement without direct help from team A, it's generally considered legit. This was the method used by Compaq to implement the IBM BIOS, back in the day.

Yes, and we agree that team A's work needs to be done before team B can work. A's work is exactly what this DMCA notification tries to shut down.

> A's work is exactly what this DMCA notification tries to shut down.

What part of A's work involves distributing deobfuscated binaries to the general public?

Team B should only have access to the specifications developed by Team A and nothing else from them. That's the whole point of isolating them.

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#54

Post by tonfa »

skypeopensource wrote: post #42
nuclear_eclipse wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding, you are allowed to decompile and inspect the released binaries, as well as intercept and analyze all inbound/outbound data, as long as you aren't modifying the running binary in any fashion. Things like debuggers are commonly used for this goal, as are tools like wireshark for analyzing the traffic. Once you create a specification based on your analysis, someone can create a clean-room implemen…

Exactly. Deobfuscated version just comfortable to debugging.

Sure, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to publish a deobfuscated version...

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#55

Post by tonfa »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #36
nextparadigms wrote: post #15

So much for Microsoft loving the open-source movement.

I guess Google too hates open source since they won't release their proprietary modifications to the Linux kernel and their search engine code and will go after anyone getting them and putting it on Github.

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Fl...

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#56

Post by Iv »

cooldeal wrote: post #52
Iv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am well aware of the joke that is the clean-room process. Note that it supposes that the first team has access to the specification, source code, or any IP-encumbered indication about how the software in question works. In the case of Skype, the only public information we have is the binary.

>Note that it supposes that the first team has access to the specification, source code, or any IP-encumbered indication about how the software in question works. In the case of Skype, the only public information we have is the binary. So what? That's not a valid excuse to distribute modified binaries to the public. If the "first" team wants to look at binaries to do their documentation, they can download the officia…

Well this decisions effectively forbids the "team A" of a clean room process to operate in the regular open source mode of distributed and public development.

I understand the rationale behind it, I think it is wrong and has bad implications for the future.

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#57

Post by Iv »

tonfa wrote: post #54
skypeopensource wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Deobfuscated version just comfortable to debugging.

Sure, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to publish a deobfuscated version...

This is a serious obstacle to collaborative open-source reverse-engineering.

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#58

Post by JoachimSchipper »

Iv wrote: post #56
cooldeal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Note that it supposes that the first team has access to the specification, source code, or any IP-encumbered indication about how the software in question works. In the case of Skype, the only public information we have is the binary. So what? That's not a valid excuse to distribute modified binaries to the public. If the "first" team wants to look at binaries to do their documentation, they can download the officia…

Well this decisions effectively forbids the "team A" of a clean room process to operate in the regular open source mode of distributed and public development. I understand the rationale behind it, I think it is wrong and has bad implications for the future.

You are aware that clean room development is about protection from legal problems, not about solving the problem as efficiently as possible, right?

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#59

Post by jlawer »

Iv wrote: post #57
tonfa wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it doesn't mean you're allowed to publish a deobfuscated version...

This is a serious obstacle to collaborative open-source reverse-engineering.

Yes it is, but thats where other solutions need to be met.... say a script that de-obfuscates a vanilla binary package so the output is created on the users machine vs being distributed as such. You can distribute the script and leave compliance to the end user.

Re: Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project

#60

Post by cooldeal »

tonfa wrote: post #55
recoiledsnake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess Google too hates open source since they won't release their proprietary modifications to the Linux kernel and their search engine code and will go after anyone getting them and putting it on Github.

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Ftorvalds%2Fl...

That doesn't include Google's modifications.

From http://lwn.net/Articles/357658/

And there's a lot in that tree. Google started with the 2.4.18 kernel - but they patched over 2000 files, inserting 492,000 lines of code. Among other things, they backported 64-bit support into that kernel. Eventually they moved to 2.6.11, primarily because they needed SATA support. A 2.6.18-based kernel followed, and they are now working on preparing a 2.6.26-based kernel for deployment in the near future. They are currently carrying 1208 patches to 2.6.26, inserting almost 300,000 lines of code. Roughly 25% of those patches, Mike estimates, are backports of newer features. .. Linus asked: why aren't these patches upstream? Is it because Google is embarrassed by them, or is it secret stuff that they don't want to disclose, or is it a matter of internal process problems?

Post reply on HN