samba - Nov 2003 - how legal is samba

With all this DMCA crud, is samba a target for a IP case from MS

Jason Adams

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 11:18:13AM -0800, Jason Adams
wrote:
> With all this DMCA crud, is samba a target for a IP case from MS
Short answer. No.

Jeremy.

I understand that the smb protocol is not in any violation, what i was 
talking about was does setting up a samba box to authenticate windows 
users conflict with any laws, seeing as how you are now negating the 
requirement for a licensed windows server. I would love to get rid of 
our Win2k pdc but my manager is a little sketchy since we have been in 
the eyes of the BSA for some time now (another story).
Jason

Philip Edelbrock wrote:
> SMB is a spec from IBM, if I remember right.  M$ implements it (or a 
> flavor of it anyway), but they don't 'own' it or have some
proprietary
> closed hold on the standard.  I.e., Samba is not reverse-engineered, 
> if that's what you are thinking.  It also can't be(?) used to 
> circumvent copyright, which is what the DMCA is all about, right?
>
> Be careful about posting stuff like this to the list.  It's flame bait 
> for sure. ;')
>
> Take care.
>
>
> Phil
>
> Jason Adams wrote:
>
>> With all this DMCA crud, is samba a target for a IP case from MS
>>
>> Jason Adams
>>

Hello Ed,

My understanding of the licensing issue is that *any* client that uses
a windows server, whether directly, or indirectly via Samba requires
a Client Access license.

Tom.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Tom Crummey, Systems and Network Manager,      EMAIL: tom@ee.ucl.ac.uk
 Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering,                  
 University College London,                       TEL: +44 (0)20 7679 3898    
 Torrington Place,                                FAX: +44 (0)20 7388 9325
 London, UK, WC1E 7JE.                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Message: 29
> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:32:07 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Tom Crummey <tom@ee.ucl.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Samba] how legal is samba
> To: eholden@mclean.harvard.edu
> Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
> Message-ID: <200311210932.hAL9W7B00525@picard.ee.ucl.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> My understanding of the licensing issue is that *any* client that uses
> a windows server, whether directly, or indirectly via Samba requires
> a Client Access license.
AFAIK this was the case with NT4. And AFAIK they changed it in win2k so
that you had no CAL licensing incentive to install samba servers into a
win2k domain, so now you need a CAL for each client that *authenticates*
to a Windows 2000 server. Thus, if you run a samba domain, your clients
all authenticate to a samba domain controller, and no CALs are needed
for Windows 2000 member servers (as respecting file/print service - you
still need CALs for other services such as MSSQL etc).

Of course, you should read the EULAs etc yourself and/or ask your legal
representative for their opinion.

IMHO, better to avoid agreeing to the EULAs in the first place, then
they have no legal basis to audit your premises.

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--------------Another happy Mandrake Club member--------------|
Buchan Milne                Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work            +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering         http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key                   http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/vkFxrJK6UGDSBKcRAguTAJ9VYq2iZu2bgeh2G82SOl2HmkPC2ACfTjG4
irUWsWExSxrNJyTcHYTG07Y=zrZm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----