Status of Kerberos Support across Samba versions

[Jeremy Allison]

"Mayers, P J" wrote:

> So, what would not using the PAC implicate for Samba? Well, you wouldn't
> know what NT groups the ticket had permissions for. If you're willing to
> live with a loss of flexibility, you could do a name-based lookup (against
> the ActiveDirectory, say) to get the groups.

Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to point out in the slashdot
flamefest :-).

> I agree a Win2K compliant PDC would have to have a PAC-format-issuing KDC,
> but I'll leave that up to the MIT or Heimdal boys. Samba can survive without
> the PAC info - but K5 ticket support (instead of NTLM of whatnot) would be
> nice.

Samba can survive without the PAC, but can MIT kerberos or
Heimdal ? That's why it's essential to get the status of
this widely distributed "trade secret" clarified legally.

The current "license" on the document is the clearest
attack on Open Source I have seen so far from Redmond.

Regards,

	Jeremy Allison,
	Samba Team.

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