IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Patent Wars and Antitrust Forum / Microsoft specifically excludes OSS from their
Post #210,622
by imric
6/9/05 11:13:55 AM
Reply
New Microsoft specifically excludes OSS from their
'final offer' for their proposed antitrust remedy.

[link|http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39202482,00.htm|http://news.zdnet.co...1,39202482,00.htm]

A 'final offer'? They are convicted! They DO NOT have the last word here... This is as stupid as the Feds being ordered to 'settle' their anti-trust case after they lost the case. If this is accepted, then the message is: 'You have to interoperate with everybody except your competition'. It would be nothing more than an absurd ruling (like the settlement in the 'States) that does nothing more but codify Microsoft's monopoly abuses into law.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


Post #210,713
by Andrew Grygus
Picture of Andrew Grygus
6/9/05 8:20:10 PM
Reply
New But as has been pointed out . . .
. . the Samba team's documentation of Microsoft's protocols is probably already far better than the documentation Microsoft will provide under the ruling - and perhaps better than what they have internally - and brings no "attachments" such as being forbidden from contributing to open source projects because you've seen the spec.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
Post #210,758
by CRConrad
6/10/05 3:08:44 AM
Reply
New Samba better deposit theirs with a notary before MS release.
Post #210,801
by folkert
Picture of folkert
6/10/05 9:40:58 AM
Reply
New Been done long ago.
Some of the Documentation of the Microsoft stuff that Microsoft has, doesn't even come close to following.

Samba is a Better implementation of the CIFS (and other stuff) than Microsoft could hope for.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
Post #210,806
by CRConrad
6/10/05 10:04:27 AM
Reply
New All I'm saying is, they better be able to PROVE it's THEIRS.
Post #210,813
by imric
6/10/05 10:35:35 AM
Reply
New Anything that complies
with MS's specs would be grounds for claiming 'contamination', though. Enough to get Samba taken off the 'market' while the issue is 'resolved' (can you say "many years of litigation"? I knew you could).
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


Post #210,821
by folkert
Picture of folkert
6/10/05 10:58:32 AM
Reply
New Trudge and crew have this well in hand.
Everything they do is proven to not be contaminated by "co-mingle", with a signature and paper trail. Plus all core Developers are required to not ever have seen the specs or the code and never to have worked for Microsoft (and any priv'd companies)

Many things they get and do, is protocol watching from Server to clients Samba Server (in various modes)-> Windows Client, Windows[NT|2K|2K3] Server -> Samba Client and of course Windows[NT|2K|2K3] Server -> Samba as Domain Member and such -> Windows Clients

They only do are watching the network traffic using the protocol, as implemented by Microsoft, then as supposedly speced out in the Public Spec, Make changes based on what they see. If M$ tries to claim DMCA or other Reverse Engineering, they are sorely out of luck, they'll open a bigger can of worms than SCO did.

It would be a shame, if Microsoft tried to claim them being contaminated. It would (in the end) force Microsoft to Open up everything in regards to the protocol... to even open source groups.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
Post #210,832
by CRConrad
6/10/05 11:17:57 AM
Reply
New Yeah, what a shame... Heh. :-)
Post #210,927
by static
6/11/05 8:10:45 AM
Reply
New MS has been known to use Samba code.
To train people about how their own protocol works! :-)

Wade.
Save Fintlewoodlewix
     Microsoft specifically excludes OSS from their - (imric) - (8) - June 9, 2005, 11:13:55 AM EDT
         But as has been pointed out . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7) - June 9, 2005, 08:20:10 PM EDT
             Samba better deposit theirs with a notary before MS release. -NT - (CRConrad) - (6) - June 10, 2005, 03:08:44 AM EDT
                 Been done long ago. - (folkert) - (5) - June 10, 2005, 09:40:58 AM EDT
                     All I'm saying is, they better be able to PROVE it's THEIRS. -NT - (CRConrad) - (3) - June 10, 2005, 10:04:27 AM EDT
                         Anything that complies - (imric) - June 10, 2005, 10:35:35 AM EDT
                         Trudge and crew have this well in hand. - (folkert) - (1) - June 10, 2005, 10:58:32 AM EDT
                             Yeah, what a shame... Heh. :-) -NT - (CRConrad) - June 10, 2005, 11:17:57 AM EDT
                     MS has been known to use Samba code. - (static) - June 11, 2005, 08:10:45 AM EDT

Someone take over before I lose my dignity.
42 ms