Microsoft's 'Threat Management Gateway' Blocks Free Software Foundation Donation Page As 'Gambling'

from the well,-for-microsoft-maybe dept

Via Slashdot, we learn that Microsoft's "Threat Management Gateway" (which some companies apparently use to protect against malicious websites) has classified the website for donations to the Free Software Foundation as "gambling," meaning that it's blocked for many users. This was first discovered by a user on Reddit who received the following notice:

The page you are trying to browse to is categorized as "Gambling"

If you believe you are getting this message by mistake, try contacting your administrator or Helpdesk.

Technical Information (for support personnel)

Error Code: 403 Forbidden. Forefront TMG denied the specified Uniform Resource Locator (URL). (12233)
IP Address: [IP Redacted]
Date: 6/14/2012 6:31:39 PM [GMT]
Server: [server name redacted]
Source: proxy

You can confirm this at Microsoft's site if you type donate.fsf.org in the box. Currently, it shows the following:

What's amazing is the regular FSF page just shows "Technical Information" and "Shareware/Freeware." So it seems that the "Gambling" designation was just added to the donate page. Amazingly, the Reddit user noticed this nearly two weeks ago, and as I type this it's still showing up classified as gambling, though FSF has put in a request to change it.

Filed Under: filtering, gambling, threat management gateway
Companies: free software foundation, microsoft

Why Couldn't Cisco And FSF Come To An Agreement?

from the this-makes-no-sense dept

There's lots of talk in tech circles about the fact that the Free Software Foundation is now suing Cisco for copyright infringement, over Cisco's misuse of GPL'd code in its Linksys routers. What seems odd is that this got as far as it did. The issue with Linksys and its use of GPL'd code has been talked about for years, and it seems like there should have been a simple solution from the very beginning: Cisco/Linksys should have made the code available, as per the terms of the license. So why didn't they? Well, the details from the case suggest that, while Cisco did drag its feet in releasing the code, FSF then came back with additional demands, specifically:

• Cisco needed to appoint a "free software compliance officer."
• Cisco needed to try to inform all past customers of its failed compliance
• Cisco needed to pay FSF a chunk of money

It appears that it's these issues over which the two parties disagree and the lawsuit was filed. While I'm sympathetic to the FSF's position, this might be going a bit too far. Nothing in the GPL requires someone to set up a "compliance officer." Yes, due to Cisco's foot-dragging, you can see why FSF would ask for such a thing, but it's difficult to see how it should be required, or eventually involve a lawsuit. Also, it's unclear why Cisco should need to inform people. The folks who actually care are likely to hear about this anyway. Yes, Cisco violated the GPL, and yes, it was slow to get itself in compliance, but FSF seems to be demanding an awful lot in response.

Filed Under: gpl, lawsuit, open source
Companies: cisco, free software foundation, linksys