Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Settlement Compliance Criticized

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the definition-of-sharing-slightly-skewed dept.

Jeremy Allison - Samba Team writes "A report on the Microsoft "release" of communication protocols, as required by the proposed settlement. Article from the Washington Post. Speaking for the Samba Team, we can't look at these documents as they require signing an NDA before even getting the terms of release. Jeremy Allison, Samba Team."

22 of 516 comments (clear)

  1. So, I found a way... by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am going to sign up, use the passport ID, sign the NDA, and eat the cost of obtaining the information. BUT, here is my way out. I am gonna do all this with a stock out-of-the-box windows machine. I will pasword protect everything the way the average windows user does. I will keep the protocal info on my hard drive in a password protected folder a-la M$ regulations. I will of course connect the computer to a DSL modem, so I can use IE and passport, at which point my IP will become availible for all to see. It is a shame that I couldn't keep those malicous hackers out, as the operating system failed. But I used it just the way MS gave it to me.....

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:So, I found a way... by Istealmymusic · · Score: 2, Funny
      That's not the only thing you need to do. *cough*Virgin*cough* Spend your $$$ elsewhere.

      Only kidding. Virgin *smirk*

      --
      "The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
  2. Re:And the problem is... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your absolutely right. It also doesn't say they can't wipe there ass with the papers before they hand them over. Maybe they should do that too.

  3. Obfuscation? by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not like the APIs are obfuscated or hidden.
    Look at the protocols in question at

    http://www.microsoft.com/legal/protocols/

    Can the Samba developers really not work out what "RtlTimeToSecondsSince1970", for example, does without Microsoft explaining?

  4. Re:interesting factoid by belroth · · Score: 5, Funny

    He doesn't need to make disparaging remarks, he can just quote from Judge Jacksons Findings of Fact :-)

    --
    I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
  5. A dirty lawyer? by isolation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Never. I dont see how you would even think of such a thing.

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  6. No! Really? by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 5, Funny
    Journalists, I grow tired of this. Wouldn't it save a lot of time, electrons and trees if you only published articles when Microsoft wasn't up to its old tricks?

    This Just In: Dropped My Shoe - It Fell to Floor - Gravity Still Works! Update at Eleven.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  7. The industry standard... as a monopoly by turtlendogrmusd.net · · Score: 5, Funny

    To summarize...

    In order to gain access, a company would have to use Microsoft's "Passport" identity authentication system, then request and sign two forms - one of them promising secrecy - just to see the license terms and find how much Microsoft is charging for the information.

    We're going to prevent this information from becoming usefull...

    Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler called the protocol process straightforward. He said nondisclosure agreements are common in the industry...

    Everybody does this...

    The protocols are vital for competitors since Windows runs on about 90 percent of desktop computers..

    Of course... We are everybody!

  8. Re: And the problem is... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


    > It's a problem because you need to sign an NDA just to look at the licensing fees. That's the problem

    So, what do you have to do to look at the NDA?

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. Re: Oh, come ON... by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 2, Funny
    So how come we're not bombing Microsoft?

    Because they have lots of money?

  10. Re:Oh, come ON... by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Funny

    The REAL question is how your comment is ranked as Score:5,Troll

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  11. Re:Typical. by slickwillie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say let the weapons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H software inspectors have unrestricted access.

  12. Re: Oh, come ON... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think we are. Look at all the crap that is being thrown at them the last few months.

  13. Re:Oh, come ON... by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Funny

    try to get the cort to neatly spell out every little detail of what M$ is required to do

    I'd just like to try to get Slashdot posters to spell out every little detail of their comments correctly for a change.

  14. Re:Typical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny
    finds a way to keep closed even when told to open up
    Sounds like an ex-girlfriend of mine. She was a big tease and when out to dinner would put her foot into my crotch area under the table but once we got home she'd put conditions on getting laid ("tell me you love me"...bleah).
  15. Well we were going to.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..but the Windows NT machine guiding the missiles crashed due to a security hole. And nobody can tell us how to fix it without violating the DMCA. :)

  16. Re: Oh, come ON... by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because they use Windows, and it'd be silly to bomb something that already crashes incessantly. Seems like a waste of explosives to me.

  17. Re:Typical. by PizzaFace · · Score: 5, Funny

    I say a regime change is necessary.

  18. Re:Perhaps more importantly... by SN74S181 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course, since it's somebody with the name 'OddWeapon' who made the correction, it has about as much credibility as any other uncooraborated fact posted in a comment on this site...

  19. Re:Oh, come ON... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Funny
    In fact, what on earth makes anyone think that he would share these weapons? If he has them, they are a source of power. If he gives them away, he is giving power away to other people.

    You obviously don't understand the principles of the Free Weapons of Mass Destruction Movement. If I make an atomic bomb it gives me power. If I share it with you, it doesn't diminish my power. All I ask in return, is if you improve my bomb, is that you share it back with me.

    For example, let's say you build a thermonuclear bomb using my atomic bomb as the initiator. It's only fair that I get to share the benefits of your superior nuclear firepower that I enabled you to obtain.

    In the end, this works out best for everyone. Deterrence only works well when everyone is on a level playing field. The best way to ensure this is to make sure that WMD knowhow and materials are freely available to everyone.

  20. Re:Typical. by iomud · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree they have weapons of mass confusion and arent afraid to use them.

  21. Re:Typical. by Zigg · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Demms certainly have their drawbacks, but they're a lot better than the Republicans in going after companies abusing power.

    Yeah, the Dems really kicking Disney's ass over in Congress right now, aren't they?