Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Agrees to Release Work Group Protocols
UnknowingFool writes "Groklaw is reporting that the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF) has signed an agreement with Microsoft to release their protocols relating to Windows Work Group Server. The Foundation agrees to pay MS $10,000, and the agreement does not cover patents. This agreement apparently was made to somewhat satisfy the EU Commission complaints. With PFIF's objective to aid open source, this agreement means that the Samba Team may finally get the information they need to fully interoperate with Windows AD servers."
that EU did something the US government couldn't.
Good news for Samba. Still listening to that audio link, but it's interesting that the Samba team aren't allowed to release the information they receive, just use it for developing OSS.
I'm sure Microsoft will use this in their 'we support open source' campaign. (I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11)
Doesn't cross license patent's, but Microsoft does have to provide a full list the patents that they believe Samba infringes. This allows Samba guys to code around it. Good news for them.
Yes it includes all AD protocols.
Jeremy.
That's the point I'm a little confused about. I fully understand that Samba decided to continue propping up the EC's prosecution (after all the other witnesses...ahem...changed their minds about testifying) of Microsoft as a matter of principle as the victim of a crime (rather than necessarily to be compensated in any way), but, I am assuming (even though they didn't pay for it themselves) this information must be worth something to them still (despite how well Samba currently works) and the PFIF apparently thinks it is worth 10 000 (which might be donated to the Samba developers for reverse engineering or something instead). Maybe someone with knowledge of Samba development (rather than the legal cases) fill me in on what they need from this data.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Taking a quick look at the agreement, it looks like PFIF can't release the documentation to the public. So, as a user of Samba, if I find a bug in Samba's handling of the protocols, how do I fix it? If I have to rely on the "Samba Team" to fix the problem, this isn't much better than source-available proprietary software---I'm still tied to a single vendor.
Let's be serious, they're still confidential, proprietary protocols, aren't they? Way to go, Microsoft.
http://outcampaign.org/
Yes they're true. Please help us. See here :
http://samba.org/samba/devel/
for details.
Thanks
Jeremy.
However, the more fundemental reason is that Microsoft's European lawyers need something that they can tell Ballmer they haven't backed down on in their fight with the EC to avoid any coniciosesiation* incidents.
* chair throwing
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Totally legal in the United States. In other jurisdictions, the law is not so clear-cut. In Europe, the right to reverse engineer is not sacrosanct. Then again, Europe doesn't (yet) have software patents.
Standard IANAL disclaimers apply, of course, but I've worked for several companies that relied on reverse engineering precisely for the purpose of compatibility with undocumented file formats. In one such company, I was informed by management (after advice from legal counsel) that it was actually legal not only to reverse engineer the file format, but it was even legal to reverse engineer / decompile the code for the application that generated the files in order to see how they were written -- the caveat being, you could only reverse engineer the code to insure compatibility, not to plagiarize it. (Usually you do a clean room reverse engineering process to insure that the people who reverse engineer the code write a clean spec that the people who write your code then use. The people doing the reverse engineering shouldn't be writing code based on that process, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.) Of course, that particular employer's policy was to not reverse engineer the code of the applications themselves, only the files they wrote, but if we had the resources and we needed to, we could reverse engineer just about anything we wanted.
The legal climate in the U.S. was shaped in part by the outcome of a case where IBM sued Compaq for reverse engineering the BIOS of the IBM PC. Clearly, Compaq prevailed, and the clone PC market was born.
Samba has been developed without the actual documentation of the protocols. The team has done a remarkable job of reverse-engineering them as much as possible. The end result is that Samba is mostly compatible with Windows servers and clients. But there have been some missing pieces because the protocols haven't been open. For example Samba can operate in an Active Directory (AD) domain but cannot be used as a primary AD server. It could be used to make a Linux Primary Domain Controller though.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Primary Domain Controllers died with NT4. As of server 2000, the concept of "primary" was removed and everything was made multi-master.
To that end, no, samba has not been able to *fully* function as a "domain controller" - as that is a separate technology from that of a "primary domain controller." They share some characteristics, but they are not the same thing.
Off-topic for a second. THIS is why I have continued to suffer the 1:19 signal:noise ratio and goatse trolls on Slashdot since 1997. Especially before the dot bomb, every story had someone directly involved with the situation posting somewhere in the comments.
Got a story about VAX? There are fifteen people with decades of experience on the forum. Bruce Perens is always on any story involving him (sometimes to an annoying level...). You had to know that Jeremy would be posting on this story.
Although less than it used to be, Slashdot still has people I can't see anywhere else. Thank you, Slash!
Put identity in the browser.
Well there are the FSMO roles, and the one I think he is referring to is the PDC Emulator role, which there can be only one.
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
But I *loved* the goatse trolls :-). It used to be the only reason I /. :-). I miss sig11 and klerk and the rest of that crew.
/. fun, especially as they drove taco *nuts* :-).
:-).
came to read
They made
Anyone remember the Bruce Perens impersonators ?
Jeremy.
The shell company and the subcontracted developers (Samba etc) cannot release the documentation.
BUT, they can create a reference implementation with normal source code comments and release that without any limits. This will effectively document the protocols. The hoi polloi just can't read Microsoft's documentation directly.
And if the documentation is incorrect, there are recourses.
And if patents come into play, there are recourses.
And if the documentation gets out of date, there are recourses.
And if you read the docs you are only NDA for three months (patents, not so much, as ususal)
This actually looks really good. Fingers crossed the inevitable gotchas are small and can be lived with.
MB
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
You'll be disappointed. They don't use Lisp.
Most importantly though,
Under the agreement, Microsoft is required to make available and keep current a list of patent numbers it believes are related to the Microsoft implementation of the workgroup server protocols That means Microsoft must tell Samba which patents apply to the protocols, and keep telling them. The developers will be able to avoid any patent traps."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Just to say thank you for all your work.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Great! Now maybe someone in OSS can figure out how to route Netbeui!
What!?
As far as patents go, this analogy is great. (Although lacking in the Slashdot-standard "Car Analogy" standard.) And the settlement and disclosure agreement we're all commenting on requires Microsoft to disclose the patent numbers of the software "inventions" they feel are embodied in the interfaces documented in the ultra-spiffy double-uber-non-disclosable documents. That means that Microsoft has to mark out the patent minefield in their workgroup protocols so that the Samba team knows what they have to re-engineer.
Somehow, I'm failing to make my real point though. My point is this: nondisclosure of the document is effectively pointless, because (A) the code will contain any of the information in the document necessary to fulfill the software's improved functionality, and yet be freely distributable and capable of study from the source code; and (B) patents can't be hidden: the patent numbers disclosed in accordance with the agreement are guaranteed pointers to the actual patent filings, and patent filings must be sufficiently detailed that the patented invention could actually be implemented according to the patent description.
Patents are public things. Inspect one and you have most of the knowledge you need to actually build the patented thing. You just aren't allowed to, unless you have license from the patent-holder. So hiding a patent in a non-disclosable document is a non-issue. Patents aren't the reason to make the document non-disclosable. And obviously, the information itself in the document isn't a reason to make the document non-disclosable, since the information is about to be translated into another language (C, problably) and published for libre. So, ultimately, I'm guessing the document remains non-disclosable for non-pragmatic reasons: bureaucratic inertia at Microsoft ("This document is non-disclosable. It's always been."); deliberate or incidental attempt to make working with the document and its information tougher (witness the necessity of a complete distinct holding entity which will receive the docs); perhaps a futile attempt to lay a "non-disclosure trap" ("I am Inigo Montoya. Your comments include detailed information from a non-disclosable Microsoft document. Prepare to die.")
Again, it makes no pragmatic sense to me.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Reverse engineering is legally protected within the E.U. courtesy of directive 92/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs. In the UK this is implemented in the Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992 No.3233). Basically I get to reverse engineer any hardware/hardware, hardware/software or software/software interface.
Apart from EMCA bits to do with circumventing *effective* copyright protection, I am aware of nothing that overrides this directive.