Microsoft Tech Specs Prohibit GPL Implementations

abartlet writes "As described in this Advogato entry, MS is trying to pull a swifty with their latest 'release' of their CIFS (the networked filesystem Samba implements) Technical Reference. The licence specifically prohibits any GPLed or (or LGPLed) program from implementing it, defining it as an 'IPR Impairing Licence'! Fortunately the CIFS community is about to release its own Technical Reference based on earlier MS documents and long experience in attempting to interoperate with the MS product." Microsoft's claim is completely ungrounded - nothing written by a third-party can take away Microsoft's intellectual property rights. But it makes a good (read: confusing to the general public) justification for preventing others from interoperating with their software.

Comments

Haiku

[offtopic_haiku_man]

Using GPL
Will encroach upon our rights
To control the world

Re:Haiku

[Srin Tuar]

--- haiku.orig Fri Apr 5 13:24:00 2002
+++ haiku.new Fri Apr 5 13:23:20 2002
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
Using GPL
Will encroach upon our rights
-To control the world
+To encroach on yours

XPL = Extreme Public License?

[mikeee]

Is that kinda like the XFL?

"You may use, modify, and redistribute this software freely, and must make it available to third parties under this license in the event that they are able to defeat you in a Grudge Match in The Iron Cage of Fury!"

The Terms are far too restrictive

[FreeUser]

a license fee of one wet honey glazed ham is due if the software is used consecutively for more than sixty thousand years.

I find the terms of the MS compatible GPL to be far too restrictive.

First, 60,000 years is far too short. I fully intend to be alive, youthful, and in perfect health in 60,000,000 years. Second, at that time, swine from whence honey glazed ham is made may well be extinct, and while genetic decendents of Long Pigs such as Bill Gates and the Honorable Senator "Disney" Hollings may still be present, honey made hams made from such creatures may not strictly qualify under the terms of the license, making it impossible to adhere to the terms of the license at all upon its termination in a short 60,000 years.

Instead, may I recommend a termination date 60x10^4000 years, and a fee payable in 1 cm^3 of common hydrogen or the equivelent converted energy thereof, calculated from Einstein's e=mc^2, payable upon that date, or the final death of the universe, whichever comes first?

That would offer the freedom I require, and the payment option (a cubic centimeter of hydrogen) is likely to be obtainable even in 60x10^4000 years, assuming the other criteria of the license termination (the end of the universe itself) hasn't taken effect.