[mdk-re] Re: o all

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:43:02AM +0300, Aleksey Novodvorsky wrote:
> Serge Skorokhodov wrote:
> 
> >Здравствуйте!
> >
> >К знающим людям. Не могли бы Вы прокомментировать следующую
> >цитату?
> >
> >>Microsoft's latest concessions regard its Common Internet File
> >>System (CIFS) and Server Message Block (SMB) protocol
> >>technologies, which Windows servers and desktop machines use to
> >>communicate over networks such as the Internet. Microsoft says
> >>that it won't assert its intellectual property rights over CIFS
> >>and will instead offer it openly as an Internet standard. In
> >>August, Microsoft will also begin licensing its proprietary
> >>enhancements to SMB, giving third parties the information they
> >>need to write compatible products. Some SMB-compatible products
> >>already exist, such as Samba, an SMB add-on for UNIX and UNIX-
> >>like OSs such as Linux. But because the SMB format was
> >>proprietary, Samba's developers had to reverse-engineer SMB,
> >>which changes somewhat with each Windows version. Microsoft's
> >>opening up of SMB is a big win for UNIX/Linux/Windows
> >>interoperability.
> >>
> Это соответствует условиям соглашения между MS и DOJ. Того самого 
> "минимального" соглашения, которое хотят сейчас ужесточить 9 штатов.  Я, 
> правда, не знаю, прописаны ли условия лицензирования в этом соглашении.
Ничего хорошего их этого не выйдет. Дело в том, что MS вынудили открыть
часть протокола и они решили раскрыть то, что и так уже без их помощи
описано в документах SNIA CIFS. Джереми Оллисон из Samba Team считает, 
что ситуация становится только хуже:

----- Forwarded message from Jeremy Allison <jra на samba.org> -----
Oh wow. I just read :

"The CIFS, Kerberos and SISLP announcements are above                                                       
and beyond the conditions of the consent decree. As such,                                                   
this is yet another step we are taking to enhance the                                                       
interoperability of Windows clients with non-Microsoft                                                      
operating systems," he said.

This means that their commitment to document any protocol                                                   
used between a MS client and server in the proposed consent                                                 
decree was *meaningless*. If they didn't consider CIFS as                                                   
a such a protocol, what did they possibly mean ?

This is looking worse and worse.....

Jeremy.

----- End forwarded message -----  
-- 
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Software architect and analyst             // SaM-Solutions Ltd.
---
Never accept an invitation from a stranger unless he gives you candy.
		-- Linda Festa