samba - Apr 2002 - Re: [expert] Microsoft - The settlement that isn't

So what does this have to do with Samba????

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rankin [mailto:david@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:23 AM
To: expert@linux-mandrake.com; Samba
Subject: [Samba] Re: [expert] Microsoft - The settlement that isn't




Steven Spears wrote:
> 
> I agree. But I would a couple more names to your list of people we need to
> vote out: Bush and Cheney. And believe me, I do everything I can to get
these
> guys out and stop them from raping our freedoms and selling out to
corporate
> America.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
	You know, the true colors of the parties are becoming more
tranparent -
thank God. The republican mantra of coddling and marketing to the
public, on a questionable/ridiculous premise, to the point that the
masses followed like cattle being led to pasture is hopefully coming to
an end. The "down with big government and taxes, power at the local
level, I can speak Spanish too" (no offense) has been nothing more than
a thinly veiled cover for concessions for the big $ interests that
support it. Oil - "gee, OK let's go drill Alaska", Insurance -
"your in
good hands" - just don't ever file a claim, health insurance -
"Ok, if
your wife is killed because an HMO "administrator/nurse" decided that
you didn't need the clinical tests that could have saved your wife and
mother of your children's life wasn't necessary -- hey, well she was
worth no more than $750K adjusted for the rate of annual inflation
anyway (Oh, could this be insurance again?).... B.S. is appalling.

	Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating partisan politics in any way.
But look to the people, or class of people that are benefitted by an
administrations legislation and, --- you make your own decision. That's
what the process is all about. But for God's sake, don't let a slick
marketing campaign decide the issues for you. Be informed, ask
questions, look at history (I hated history in school), and make a
difference!! (How is the Microsoft settlement playing out anyway?)

	The entire political debate issues are largely capitol B and capitol
S.
Misinformation to concleal the true agenda. And, the American public
says "Gee, they told us that gas supply would be tight during spring
break, so I guess the fact that gas prices just went up 20 cents is OK.
(Right - no tightening of world supply, no shortages, "but if they told
us the supply was tight, I guess it's OK") (Right, and the moon is made
of green cheese -- any buyers?)

	It is up to you to participate enough, and to the extent required,
to
understand the issues and place your political choice on the person that
will advocate your views in the legislation, justice department action,
etc.. to bring about the changes you desire. Each of you reading this in
the U.S. has the ability to contact you representative and senator (In
written form) and make your opinion known. (Yep I am (was) young, didn't
think my congressmen would pay attention to anything I had to say) But
the truth of the matter is, very few congressmen know (borrowing from a
Texas term) "shit-from-shineola" regarding Linux, Open Source, or the
barriers being erected to its moving forward.

	As a test, how many reading know:

	(1) Who their State Representative is, their address and phone?

	(2) Who their State Senator is, their addresses and phone?

	(3) Who their National Representative is, their address and phone?

	(4) Who their National Senators are, their addresses and phone?

	Further, how may reading have contacted or written any of the above
"in
your entire life?"

	None of this is critical of anyone. The point is -- We can all make
a
difference! The old adage that the U.S. works by majority rule is a
complete fallacy. Nobody except the moneyed ($) interest actually
participate. The reality of the situation is that policy in the U.S. is
actually controlled by the vocal "minority" of those that participate
in
the process. The opportunity is there to be the vocal minority if you
just stand up.

	So, what is all of the ranting about? Very simple in summation --- 

	BE THE VOCAL MINORITY AND -- YOU WILL BE HEARD !!!

	Why do I write? I'm getting older. I'm a lawyer. I deal with this
crap
more than I want to. But in doing so, having been involved with the
GPL/open source community (I'm a nerd engineer as well) I know with the
following that Linux/open source has, we can make a difference. I can't
do much. I don't make the laws, but if I can help everyone understand
how they can make a difference, well then, at least that is something I
can try to do.

	OK -- I'm off my soap box. If you think this is B.S, hit the <del>
key.
But, if you think there may be something here, the ball is in your
court, go make a difference.


> On Tuesday 16 April 2002 18:46, Lyvim Xaphir wrote:
> > The government has become increasingly intrusive over the last 20
years.
> > Taxes are beyond intolerable; they are now insane. Not only that, but
> > it's clear that the democrats are out to increase taxes further
and do
> > away with our personal freedoms; second amendment, digital, and
> > otherwise.  The one thing that the US government is supposed to do
well
> > is protect the people.  So basically the government has failed
miserably
> > to do the one thing that we pay taxes and elect our officials to do;
and
> > that is protect the people.  M$ now has a carte blanc to continue
it's
> > rape.  A license for criminal activity.
> >
> > To top it all off, there is an Enron bomb simmering at the massive M$
> > organization that has been hushed up for years; and continues on to
this
> > day.  A highly respected CPA has been attempting to blow the lid on
this
> > one since 1999.  Yet no one seems to have the balls to bring it into
the
> > limelight; note that the top execs (including Gates) of M$ have been
> > quietly selling off their stock in the company, as you check out the
> > following URL:
> >
> > See:  http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
> >
> > The wrong people have *bought* control of the legislation system.  Now
> > you guys can get ready for a barrage of laws to be introduced that
will
> > legislate Linux and open source out of existence.  They may not get
the
> > Consumer Broadband and the DMCA through, but they are going to hit us
> > with such a barrage of new legislation that something is probably
going
> > to be slimed through the cracks.  So keep your eyes peeled; it's
coming.
> >
> > The only answer that possibly may be there is to GET THESE PARASITES
OUT
> > OF OFFICE.  Offenders such as Daschel, Gephardt, and Hollings should
be
> > gotten out of power.  This will require conscious political activism.
> >
> > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 13:19, David Rankin wrote:
> > > Antitrust Division, U.S. D.O.J.
> > >
> > >     We the people, in order to promote fair opportunity for
competition
> > > in the computer software and operating system markets, want to
know
why
> > > Microsoft is allowed to continue is predatory practices within
the
> > > software market.
> > >
> > >     Of greatest concern is Microsoft's continued ability to
eliminate
> > > competition and harm consumers who choose Linux as a competitior
to
> > > Microsoft. The following article by Bruce Perens exemplifies our
> > > complaint that Microsoft is still able to harm competition and
consumers
> > > with its practices.
> > >
> > >     The issues contained within the article deserve your
departments
> > > consideration and special attention. Mr. Perens article follow
below
the
> > > signature.
> > >
> > > --
> > > David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
> > > RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
> > > 1329 N. University, Suite D4
> > > Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
> > > (936) 715-9333
> > > (936) 715-9339 fax
> > >
> > > ****************************************************************
> > >
> > > The Microsoft penalty that isn't
> > > By Bruce Perens
> > > April 15, 2002, 12:00 PM PT
> > >
> > > In its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine
states,
> > > Microsoft promised to publish technology that would allow
competing
> > > products to interoperate with Windows. But Microsoft has
sidestepped
the
> > > penalty by crafting a technology license that excludes the
company's
> > > only viable competitor.
> > >
> > > Linux, which was described by Windows Division Vice President
Brian
> > > Valentine as the long-term threat against Microsoft's core
business,
is
> > > banned from interoperating with its common Internet file system,
> > > otherwise known as Windows File and Printer Sharing.
> > >
> > > The Microsoft license specifically excludes software under the
General
> > > Public License, commonly known as the GPL. The GPL is the
software
> > > license used by Linux and by SAMBA, a popular open-source program
that
> > > allows non-Microsoft systems to share files and printers with
Windows.
> > > Microsoft has also banned software under the Lesser General
Public
> > > License, or LGPL. That license is used by the Mozilla Web
browser, the
> > > GNOME graphical desktop, and many of the software libraries
shipped
with
> > > Linux. The GPL and LGPL are the most popular licenses used for
> > > open-source software, and cover tens of thousands of free
programs.
> > >
> > > A second Microsoft license on extensions used in Windows 2000 and
> > > Windows XP will require royalty payments, excluding all software
> > > produced by the open-source developer community. Because
Microsoft has
> > > patented features of the file-sharing protocol, open-source
developers
> > > who implement the protocol could be sued for infringement.
> > >
> > > Microsoft is likely to use this same license on future
"standards,"
> > > embedding patented features in the standards and excluding free
software
> > > like Linux from use of the patents. While patented features in
file
> > > sharing would handicap Linux from being able to exchange files
over an
> > > office LAN (local area network), similar future efforts could ban
> > > open-source tools like OpenOffice and AbiWord from operating with
> > > documents created using Microsoft Office, and Web browsers like
Mozilla
> > > from viewing Web sites produced with Microsoft software.
> > >
> > > It's the share-and-share-alike provision of the GPL that
Microsoft
can't
> > > accept--the requirement that modified versions of software under
the
> > > license be available for anyone to further distribute and modify.
But
> > > this is the aspect of the license that made Linux a threat to
Microsoft
> > > while even the mighty IBM could not dent Microsoft's monopoly
with its
> > > OS/2 operating system.
> > >
> > > The GPL, brainchild of MacArthur "genius" grant
recipient Richard
> > > Stallman and his GNU Project, creates a fair partnership among
many
> > > thousands of independent software developers that is difficult
for
> > > Microsoft to swallow. Microsoft previously responded by
influencing
> > > government and universities to choose weaker OS licenses that
lack the
> > > share-and-share-alike provision.
> > >
> > > Because Microsoft can make proprietary and patented enhancements
to
> > > software under the weaker licenses, it can apply its
embrace-and-enhance
> > > strategy: Microsoft introduces incompatibility into the Microsoft
> > > version of the software, and forces the public version of the
software
> > > out of the market because it won't interoperate with the
Windows
> > > version. Only a vendor that dominates the market could use such a
> > > strategy to maintain its monopoly. The GPL-licensed Linux system
is
the
> > > only one that has been able to make a dent in that monopoly.
> > >
> > > Microsoft executives justify their position with the mantra,
"We are
for
> > > strong intellectual-property protection." But only when
it's to
> > > Microsoft's advantage; otherwise, Microsoft wouldn't be
pressuring
> > > others to weaken their open-source licensing. Even during the
penalty
> > > phase of their antitrust prosecution, the company still can't
settle
for
> > > a piece of the software industry pie. Although Microsoft's
compromise
> > > with the U.S. Department of Justice is crafted to make it seem
that a
> > > competitor could enter, it still leaves Microsoft owning the
whole
pie.
> > >
> > > This situation also illustrates the dichotomy of software patents
versus
> > > copyright. Copyright laws protect your rights to the software
that
> > > you've created. Even the OS advocates use copyright law to
enforce
their
> > > share-and-share-alike provisions.
> > >
> > > In contrast, software patents create a legal monopoly that allows
the
> > > holder to prevent someone else from creating and distributing
their
own
> > > software. If software patents were awarded justly, they might not
be
> > > quite so bad. But according to patent expert Greg Aharonian, 95
percent
> > > of software patent claims are not inventions at all, and should
never
> > > have been awarded. Blame the U.S. patent office, which rewards
its
> > > examiners for awarding patents, not denying them, and gives them
only
a
> > > few hours to examine each application.
> > >
> > > When an open-source developer is prosecuted under an invalid
patent
> > > claim, can he prove that the patent is invalid or does not apply?
The
> > > legal fees for a patent defense often exceed a million dollars.
The
> > > little open-source developer will be forced to settle with the
big
> > > corporation, regardless of the merits of the case. To foster
open-source
> > > development, we need to provide developers with a safe harbor
from
> > > software patent prosecution.
> > >
> > > What should you do if you aren't happy about Microsoft
escaping an
> > > antitrust penalty? Don't be passive about it. Since Microsoft
hates
the
> > > GPL so much, give them more of it to contend with: Deploy systems
like
> > > GNU/Linux as Web servers and other infrastructure, and consider
Mozilla,
> > > OpenOffice and Evolution for the desktop. Look around fors
oftware
> > > projects that you can place under the GPL: internal tools,
research
> > > work, products that you built and then didn't sell--and get
your
> > > employer to release them.
> > >
> > > But most importantly, let the U.S. Department of Justice and the
nine
> > > U.S. states that want to settle with Microsoft know that you
won't
> > > tolerate a sham. The remedies in the antitrust case must not
exclude
> > > Microsoft's only real competitor.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----
> > >
> > >
> > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
> Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
-- 

David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
1329 N. University, Suite D4
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax

-- 
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

On Thu, 2002-04-18 at 08:42, James Davis wrote:
> So what does this have to do with Samba????
I was wondering that, too.  This, on the other hand, is interesting. 
Microsoft may have the legal muscle to make life very difficult for
Samba:

http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24661.html

"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)."

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.

This has me really concerned.

Hi,

Does anyone have a solution to problems with oplocks on word files?
I do not want to turn off oplocks, that makes everything alot slower.

log.smbd:

[2002/04/25 08:15:09, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(788)
   oplock_break: no break received from client within 30 seconds.
   oplock_break failed for file wordfile.doc (dev = 307, inode = 4685845, 
file_id = 1159).
[2002/04/25 08:15:09, 0] smbd/oplock.c:oplock_break(833)
   oplock_break: client failure in oplock break in file wordfile.doc
[2002/04/25 08:15:09, 0] smbd/reply.c:reply_lockingX(4480)
   reply_lockingX: Error : oplock break from client for fnum = 10795 and no 
oplock granted on this file (wordfile.doc).

I get this and similar errors randomly it seems on word files.

/Mikko