[Samba] Re: [expert] Microsoft - The settlement that isn't

[Bill Studenmund]

On 18 Apr 2002, David Brodbeck wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 19:42, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > > "ComputerWire predicted the release of CIFS and SMB could squash open
> > > source when news first broke of its decision to open the technology in
> > > March. As details of the CIFS license have emerged since then, it has
> > > become clear Microsoft has effectively banned open source companies from
> > > distributing implementations of CIFS, if the software is distributed
> > > under the General Public License (GPL)."
> >
> > Samba team can release source under SPL (Samba Public License).
> > We can play dirty games too if needed. :-)
>
> Not really.  Microsoft's patent license wording apparently bans all
> open-source licenses, GPL just happens to be the only one they mention
> specifically.

Are you sure? When I looked at it, it looked like it bans all licenses
that place restrictions on the other code you include with it. That
squarely puts it in opposition to the (L)GPL, but the BSD-style licenses
should be fine. And they most certainly are open-source licenses. :-)

Ahh, here's a quote from the definitions:

1.4 "IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the
GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires
in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to
such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be
licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be
redistributable at no charge.

So it does a little more than I said. It also prevents you making code
that others would have to license from you (i.e. you can't use their docs
to make code that Microsoft has to license from you to use).

Take care,

Bill