Slashdot Mirror

If it's a one-for-one translation (and you buy Microsoft's we-copyrighted-kerberos stance), copyright will still apply to the end result.

We do have salvation.

Go here.

Some kind soul has reversed-engineered Microsoft's embraced-extended-extinguished version of kerberos. A full working version can be found at the above link. Please, spread the meme (for a month or two). Then don't worry about it, cause who really wants to help Microsoft conform to standards.

They don't want to play fair, and that's why they're being broken up. Once the monopoly is gone, the necessity to ensure Microsoft conforms to standards will no longer exist (market forces will take up the slack). I love a free market economy, especially when anti-competitive monopolists are put into check.

(1) The information can no longer be assumed to be a trade secret.
(2) It's not patented.
(3) The Microsoft document is copyrighted, but the information can be disseminated in any way other than their document.

Solution: Rewrite the document

Like this: http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.html
I've got a message posted below, but it's buried too deep to get moderated up. Hopefully, it can see some light up here.

So far, over 100 hits since I posted two hours ago. The server wouldn't mind a couple thousand... it's bored out of its skull anyway.

-Hope

Given that there is a GPL'd document published that does not have the Microsoft restrictions, I wonder where they stand legally now?

I published this on Friday, but here it is again. Maybe it'll get moderated up this time.

http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.html
http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.txt

Good luck!
-Hope

Given that there is a GPL'd document published that does not have the Microsoft restrictions, I wonder where they stand legally now?

I published this on Friday, but here it is again. Maybe it'll get moderated up this time.

http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.html
http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.txt

Good luck!
-Hope

I'm going to reproduce an AC's post found here because it seems very relevant to the copyright issue.

There is an interesting precedent on what happens when copyright and first-amendment collide. Some decades ago, the Soviets published a badly bawdlerized version of a dissident's book that had become widely acclaimed in hand-copied "samizdat" editions. When the original was smuggled to the West and published here, the Soviet "publisher" sued for violation of copyright. The court, in throwing out the lawsuit, reasoned that copyright law was being used to stifle a protected political debate: about Communist _praxis_ then, about Microsoft's extend-to-destroy strategy now.

The core of the court's reasoning was based on the original purpose of each clause. When two constitutonal provisions collide, the one that is being used for its original constitutional purpose prevails. The purpose of copyrights was to promote the dissemination of knowledge, by giving a financial incentive to writing and publication. This is the central purpose that must be protected. Other uses of copyright, such as trying to halt the spread of of information that might harm the political interests of the copyright owner, enjoy a lower level of protection, particularly when they act against the original purpose of copyright, and hinder, rather than promote, the dissemination of ideas. Similarly, the original purpose of free speech guarantees was to promote unhindered debate of political issues. Other uses of the 1st amendment's guarantee of free expression - for example, the provision of pornography to masturbators - enjoy less protection. Such secondary uses of the free-spech guarantee may have to give way when they are in conflict wih the central purpose of some other constitutional provision.

In the case that set the precedent - just like the case now - the 1st amendment case involved publication of material going to the heart of a public political controversy, the exact purpose for which the 1st amendment was written into our constituton. As for copyright, it was being used then - just like now - directly _against_ the original constitutional purpose. The Soviets then, and Microsoft now, have tried to use copyright to hinder, rather than promote, the dissemination of knowledge. I hope that the above will help /. apply the precedent to your present case.

The above is a very reasonable argument for why Slashdot should not have to censor the offendings posts.

For those who want a copyright-free interpretation of Microsoft's kerberos implementation, try
http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.txt.

And here it is in HTML...

Microsoft Kerbos V5 Authentication Specification in HTML

-Hope

There is a great post on the copyright issue here. It explains how free speech rights overcome Microsoft's specious copyright argument. It even uses a legal precedent from Soviet-era U.S. politics.

And, there is an interpretation of the Microsoft kerberos specification here -- does not use any material on which Microsoft can claim copyright, much like DeCSS. This is the version people should link to and post around the web. Very nice.

Here's a link to the document... http://www.thetop.net/kerbos/spec.txt -Hope