Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Agrees to Release Work Group Protocols

Posted by Zonk on from the kind-of-a-big-deal(tm) dept.

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."

15 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Just another example by microbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that EU did something the US government couldn't.

    1. Re:Just another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Couldn't or wouldn't? When they were under pressure earlier this decade, Microsoft spent a lot of money lobbying/buying off US state and federal governments, creating fake "grass roots" campaign sites and paying for press releases from pro-corporate lobbyist groups such as the cato institute (source1 source2).

    2. Re:Just another example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You seem to imply that there is some difference between the US Government and MicroSoft.
      Truly, the only thing more tightly integrated with Windows than Internet Explorer is the Justice Department.
      Was that my outside voice?

  2. and you'll see this in a glossy brochure... by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure... by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've always reckoned Microsoft should release the code for their unsupported OS's such as Windows 3.11 The OSs may be unsupported, but the code is still used.
  3. Re:Fully interoperate with the AD by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes it includes all AD protocols.

    Jeremy.

  4. Re:Good by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes they're true. Please help us. See here :

    http://samba.org/samba/devel/

    for details.

    Thanks

    Jeremy.

  5. Re:So where can I find the documentation? by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

    They way it will work is as follows. We'll read the docs and work on creating client-side test cases and embedding them into Samba4 smbtorture. Once that's in place, any competent engineer can create the server-side implementation without having to have access to the actual docs. We need the test cases anyway (remember, untested code is broken code), so this is the way we've been going about doing things anyway. This should just open up new protocols and new protocol areas to implementation by others.

    Jeremy.

  6. Re:So where can I find the documentation? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't mean to belittle your work, which is important, but I want to pre-empt Microsoft salesmen who might decide to point to this as evidence that Microsoft protocols are as open as, say, NFSv4.

    --
    http://outcampaign.org/
  7. Re:So, they can follow the law now? by LionMage · · Score: 5, Informative

    Correct me if I'm wrong but, reverse engineering for compatibility purposes is legal.

    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.
  8. Re:works just long enough by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 4, Informative
    "Section 3 is where Microsoft promises to provide the documentation that we need. It deals with the timeliness of that documentation, how errors in the documentation will be dealt with, how and when updates will be provided and what type of technical support will be provided."

    WSPP Documentation - Updates.
    3.2
    (a) General. Microsoft will make updated WSPP Documentation for modified and new WSPP Protocols (that are added to WSPP after Microsoft initially provides WSPP Documentation to Licensee under Section 3.1) available for license by Licensee under this Agreement:
    (i) if applicable, upon release of the First Beta for the relevant Service Pack to the relevant product, or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol (documentation provided in such instance, a "Preliminary Documentation Update"), or
    (ii) if no such First Beta is released, then at least 15 days before the : (A) commercial release of the Service Pack to the relevant product (i.e., Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System), or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol, or
    (B) the day on which the final version of any other Update is released. "First Beta" means the first public beta testing version of the Service Pack or new version of the relevant Windows operating system product made available by Microsoft via an MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network) subscription offering or of which 150,000 or more copies are distributed. Licensee will be given automatic access to the WSPP Documentation for any Licensed Protocol modifications made available under this Section 3.2, for no additional charge beyond the License Fee. Licensee will be given access to the WSPP Documentation for any other WSPP Protocol modifications or any new WSPP Protocols pursuant to the process described in Section 3.1(b)(ii), for no additional charge beyond the License Fee.
    (b) Preliminary Documentation Updates. When a Preliminary Documentation Update is made available to Licensee, Microsoft will also make the WSPP Documentation for the commercially released version of the relevant Service Pack or new product version (such documentation, a "Final Documentation Update") available to Licensee within 15 days after the relevant date production is authorized for the manufacture of copies of software for commercial availability. THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3.3(a) AND 6.3 DO NOT APPLY TO PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, BUT DO APPLY TO FINAL DOCUMENTATION UPDATES. SINCE THE FIRST BETA CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMERCIALLY RELEASED VERSION, LICENSEE IS ADVISED THAT THERE ARE RISKS IN ANY RELIANCE ON PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT LICENSEE INCURS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR ANY OTHER COSTS AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELIANCE, IT DOES SO AT ITS OWN RISK.
    (c) Availability. Once a protocol becomes a WSPP Protocol under the WSPP, Microsoft will continue to make WSPP Documentation for that protocol available during the Term. Subject to the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement requires Microsoft to (i) deliver any WSPP Documentation for any modified or new protocol other than as provided in this Section 3.2 or (ii) continue to implement any WSPP Protocol in any Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System. However, Microsoft will provide notice to Licensee in the relevant portion of the WSPP Documentation of WSPP Protocols that remain available for license but which are no longer used by Microsoft in Windows Client and Server Operating Systems, generally in accordance with the timeframe in Section 3.2(a)(i).
  9. Re:Fully interoperate with the AD by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Fully interoperate with the AD by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But I *loved* the goatse trolls :-). It used to be the only reason I
    came to read /. :-). I miss sig11 and klerk and the rest of that crew.

    They made /. fun, especially as they drove taco *nuts* :-).

    Anyone remember the Bruce Perens impersonators ? :-).

    Jeremy.

  11. Re:That's akin to by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative
    Maybe someone with knowledge of Samba development

    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."
  12. Great! by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great! Now maybe someone in OSS can figure out how to route Netbeui!

    What!?