Jeremy Allison jeremy at
Fri Sep 29 18:45:21 GMT 2000

Martin Kuhne wrote:
> (1) I was responding to a post that claims MS messed up kerberos. This is
> simply not true, MS kerberos is rfc compliant plus all the changes now have
> been documented for everyone to review.

But what is the point of this if the license prohibits implementation ?

Why even bother to publish at all ? What does it achieve (except to annoy
the original MIT kerberos developers) ?

I fully understand that Microsoft has completely followed the RFC in
their implementation. The problem is they followed the *letter* of
the RFC, not the *spirit* of the RFC. No other company pulls these kind
of tricks. They either produce proprietary specs and code, which is
perfectly fine and is their right of course, or they follow the *spirit*
of the RFC process.

Why does Microsoft feel they need to try and pretend "openness" like
this ?

When I originally asked Peter Brundrett for the PAC spec back in 1997 (!)
he told me that it would eventually be released. In no-ones wildest dreams
is the current situation acceptable.

> (2) I was not referring to the legal issues you are detailing below and I am
> truly sorry if I have been unclear.

No problem, I appreciate your presence on this list.


	Jeremy Allison,
	Samba Team.

Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list