Jeremy makes a persuasive argument for LGPL (MS Kerberos stuff)
primorec at telocity.com
Tue Feb 19 13:10:11 CST 2002
On Tue, 19 February 2002, Sean Farley wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 12:17, Roland wrote:
> > At 09:07 PM 2/18/02 -0500, Anthony Taylor wrote:
> > >Take, for instance, Microsoft's attempted hijacking of the Kerberos
> > >protocol. MS almost took an accepted standard, and almost perverted it
> > Well, I think we are still better off as when M$ would have created their
> > own protcol from scratch. They certainly have the money to do that. The way
> > it is now, we just have to implement the extensions to be able to use
> > M$-Kerberos. I don't see where the BSD license has brought any kind of
> > disadvantage here.
> Actually, the open-sourced implementation changed their specification
> and forced Microsoft into explaining what they changed, but my memory
> about it is not the greatest.
> scf at farley.org
Yes.. they published their change... but they said
in the same time that you are not allowed to
implement it anywhere, because the changes are
copyright-ed by them. It is basicaly the same as their "shared source" approach: you can see it but you are not allowed to use it.
More information about the wine-devel