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."
Re:That's akin to (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
http://samba.org/samba/devel/ [samba.org]
for details.
Thanks
Jeremy.
I'm not understanding something... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the licensed documentation is under non-disclosure terms, but the source code is still freely distributable....
what's the point to the documentation not being disclosable?
Talk about pointless legalese...
Re:So where can I find the documentation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not understanding something... (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:Until the next release? (Score:2, Interesting)
...
...
...
... I guess it is a good thing after all that corporations don't upgrade as fast as the software world moves.
Ok (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fully interoperate with the AD (Score:1, Interesting)
Have you guys busted out the champagne, yet?
Re:Just another example (Score:3, Interesting)
There, fixed it for you.
Re:Just another example (Score:3, Interesting)
There, I fixed it for you.
Re:Fully interoperate with the AD (Score:5, Interesting)
came to read
They made
Anyone remember the Bruce Perens impersonators ?
Jeremy.
Re:What's this mean in the real world? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft may not want others to be able to be able to provide services that work well with and/or provide similar or better functionality than their own, but that is what they have been told not to hinder by hiding their specs.
Re:I'm not understanding something... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:and you'll see this in a glossy brochure... (Score:2, Interesting)