Re: a fine kettle of fish

On Thu, 11 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> So, here is the background. Kerberos is an open specification
> (and code) for security authorization in a network. Microsoft
> adopted Kerberos for Win2000. However, it made a slight chnage
> so that Win2000 workstaions could only be authenticated by a
> Win2000 Kerberos server and not by a Linux or Unix server.
>
> When this initially became known, people protested. Mircosoft
> promised it would make public its changes. Microsoft did, but
> only on condition that people signed an agreement (EULA) not to
> divulge what MS disclosed, thereby eliminating the ability for
> the Open Source community to mke its servers compatible with
> Win2000 workstation.
>
> A fierce discussion on <http://www.slashdot.org/> ensued. In the
> discussion posters revealed the code, ways to get the code from
> Microsft without agreeing to non-disclosure, and ways to
> circumvent the code.

Unfortunately I think this is a legitimate and reasonable attempt by Microsoft to protect their copyright. I note that they are not asking for damages or anything, they are just asking for removal of messages that violate their copyright or messages that offer others the opportunity to violate copright restrictions.

[\begin slightly offtopic]

I think that the general Kerberos situation is more worrying for the implications for Microsoft's future actions in the light of the DOJ+19 case.

Microsoft's proposed remedies appears to be "Ok I beat my dog, as punishment I will promise not to use *that* stick to beat *that* dog in future" ... but to guarantee the right to innovate I keep the right to use other implements on other dogs e.g. Kerberos
[\end slight offtopic]

Pete

Pete Lukacs
<p.z.lukacs[_at_]city.ac.uk> Received on Sun May 14 2000 - 10:26:07 GMT