Skype Uses DMCA To Remove Reverse-Engineered Code

Ummmm...isn't skype FREE in the first place....?????

Free to download, and for the most part, between skype users yes. But it may not always stay that way, and with an open source alternative it may force skype to stay 'free'.

Also there are other reasons for it, he may want to help people understand how a program like this works, so they can get jobs at skype.

Since MS bought it some people want to reverse engineer it and essentially "remake" it. There are specific rules allowed to clean room reverse engineer things, obviously these guys aren't following those rules.

Problem solved. Just create the blog on servers that are outside the U.S., where the stupid DMCA does not apply.

Exactly, what the hell were they thinking? Is it so hard to get hosted elsewhere? Preferably in a country which does not bend over to U.S (which severely limits the possibilities but still...).

Skype will remain free because if it doesn't it will lose a good number of users (not paying customers though, unless market share drops enough to make Skype subscriptions pointless). It's one thing to build an exceptional application and charge a fee for it from the start, but to start charging when it has been free for years will not please users. There are alternatives available, although most are probably not yet as polished and will need some corporate backing to improve them.

An open source implementation of the full Skype protocol would destroy Skype's current freemium business model. Implementing enough only to send text messages to other Skype clients isn't really a threat as this is not Skype's primary purpose (plus the IM scene is saturated with other clients). I guess Microsoft/Skype are taking the initiative and trying to kill this off before he makes progress on something useful.

Skype is FREE, but it's closed-source. Free != open source.

I usually support open source software, but in this case the blogger needs to STFU and do something else... there's a ton of open source communication software out there and there's no need to mess with Skype. I'll always prefer the official client, anyway.

Charging for general skype use would be about as dumb as AOL charging for AIM (Perhaps the only good AOL product they ever made). The idea is to make a rich eco-system which can be a big selling point for MS products. Skype could be added to Outlook, or tied only to PW7/8, or at least charge competing phones an arm and a leg to have skype available for their mobile devices. In short there are lots of ways to make good money by keeping it free to the public.

My only hope is that they would make the silly program easier to close. I hate that it wants to be on all the time!

AOL didn't make ICQ. They bought it from Mirabilis some time late in the last millenia (or the beginning of this, don't remember exactly)

also, if you allow reverse engineering the skype protocol, can you not also send malware, spam and related junk through it, just like what happend with ICQ , AIM, etc? not allowing outside access to the protocol is a good thing to me. I really dont want other people to be able to do that, it causes an application to become even more un-secure.

As if I can't do that with a closed source protocol.
Seriously, this does not make any large difference whether something is open or not.
If you think that not allowing outside access to protocols is dangerous then immediatelly stop using the internet. It's TCP-IP libraries/standards are essentially open!
(This is actually a good thing.)

And change the headline to:

Microsoft Uses DMCA To Remove Reverse-Engineered Code

Because skype here is a division of Microsoft and actually has nothing to say.

OK. to clear it up for you. yes everyone should be able to drive on the street - (internet) but not necessarily in my neighborhood (gated community) and especially not in my driveway (more limited ) and only a very few are allowed in my garage (restricted)
same for protocol. my car may go all those places, but that does not mean I want YOUR car all those places..

Why reverse engineer a free, widely available product? It just seems some people are hell bent on eliminating MS as much as possible - why not spend your time and resources elsewhere.

Reverse engineering of software is protected under fair use for research purposes.

eg: There could be no such thing as the Samba project if this lawsuit has any merit other than for MS lawyers to justify themselves.

You realize that it is the reverse engineering of the original IBM bios in the exact same manner, and for the exact same purpose that, created the entire PC industry as it is now, right?