Microsoft Agrees to Release Work Group Protocols 143
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."
Fully interoperate with the AD (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just another example (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So, they can follow the law now? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just another example (Score:3, Informative)
There, fixed it for ya.
Re:Fully interoperate with the AD (Score:5, Informative)
Jeremy.
Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So where can I find the documentation? (Score:5, Informative)
Jeremy.
Re:So, they can follow the law now? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:What's this mean in the real world? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What's this mean in the real world? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:works just long enough (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fully interoperate with the AD (Score:5, Informative)
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!
Re:What's this mean in the real world? (Score:3, Informative)
This is a real victory ... if it pans out (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:That's akin to (Score:5, Informative)
You'll be disappointed. They don't use Lisp.
Most importantly though,
Re:That's akin to (Score:2, Informative)
Those patents apply only in the US.
Hello from EU by the way
Shame that you guys there have to suffer from software patents
Re:Impresisons (Score:3, Informative)
It's a hurdle on all three counts - there are patents (but with this agreement MS has to tell us what they are and if they get any new ones that affect licensees), there are legal problems (making sure the code is CLEANLY reverse-engineered for starters) and there are technical issues (it's a whole heap of a mess and it's taking years to find out useful information that you can put in a nicely programmed version, it requires literally throwing educated-guess packets at a Windows server and trying to replicate it's response depending on the state of the entire network, the packet and the server databases).
Re:That's akin to (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So, they can follow the law now? (Score:4, Informative)
Apart from EMCA bits to do with circumventing *effective* copyright protection, I am aware of nothing that overrides this directive.