Microsoft cifs specification

The preview period for a technical document varies. Additionally, not every technical document will be published for preview. A preview version of this document may be available on the Windows Protocols - Preview Documents page.

After the preview period, the most current version of the document is available on this page. Find resources for creating interoperable solutions for Microsoft software, services, hardware, and non-Microsoft products:. Technical Documentation. Additionally, overview documents cover inter-protocol relationships and interactions.

This documentation is covered by Microsoft copyrights. Regardless of any other terms that are contained in the terms of use for the Microsoft website that hosts this documentation, you can make copies of it in order to develop implementations of the technologies that are described in this documentation and can distribute portions of it in your implementations that use these technologies or in your documentation as necessary to properly document the implementation.

You can also distribute in your implementation, with or without modification, any schemas, IDLs, or code samples that are included in the documentation. This permission also applies to any documents that are referenced in the Open Specifications documentation. No Trade Secrets. Microsoft does not claim any trade secret rights in this documentation.

Microsoft has patents that might cover your implementations of the technologies described in the Open Specifications documentation.

Neither this notice nor Microsoft's delivery of this documentation grants any licenses under those patents or any other Microsoft patents. Perhaps you didn't think of OSS as a part of the economic system. It is, though its effects aren't quite the same. Microsoft abandoned these "raw" protocol operations in CIFS because their basic design is fatally flawed. Plain FUD. The license as the statement says covers an onlder version. So it will not really affect the development , atleast thats why i inferred, correct me if I am wrong.

The may be evil but they are not Fools Sooner or later Score: 2 by 3seas writes: Sooner or later that parites that matter are going to have to recognize the disconnected from reality arrogance of MS. And as the boy who cried wolf, MS has been BS'ing since Bill Yelled and coined the term "software piracy" in the mid 's.

I just hope the court system involved in the anti-trust case does before a decission is made by the judge. Mischief-making Score: 5 , Interesting by Observer writes: on Tuesday April 30, AM So, it seems that MS spent a little small change cooking up some documentation that raised the possibility that Samba might infringe on some of MS's intellectual property.

Samba Team was then obliged to spend proportionally considerably more time and resources analysing this suggestion so they can issue a plausible refutation. In the meantime, all the 'careful' line management types whose reason for existence is never to be seen to be responsible for a mistake will have taken the point that deploying Samba is 'risky', and will now have to be persuaded all over again that this particular risk is an acceptable one, and that in this case there was smoke without fire.

Neat work, MS. Extra credit: write a replacement for windowsupdate. Yeah, I know, I'm dreaming, it's more work than anyone would pay for. A new project The Open CD project [theopencd. To compile and distribute A CD-ROM containing a selection of high quality open source software for use on proprietary operating systems.

Microsoft is effectively denying its users of Microsoft OSs access to competing products, which as I pointed out in the ask. I have a crazy idea. This would be a two pronged attack. The other prong will be a group that will write win32 applications that will take advantage of the Samba extensions to the CIFS and distribute the app for free.

Since the OSS community numbers in the thousands at least, this would be very straightforward to accomplish. When is the next iteration of Windows anyway? Right now could be a window of opportunity just opening up. The Microsoft system of printer sharing is based on having a printer-specific driver for each printer. This permits the application to invoke a printer-specific options page for any printer, past, present or future, without having to decide which printers they wish to support.

It also in turn allows printer manufacturers to add new, arbitrary features to their printers to control things like color models, printing multiple pages in one, draft modes of different types, control of different dithering models used when printing graphics, control over paper input trays, collation, stapling, and so on and so forth.

The user is not forced to use the lowest common denominator, because the manufacturer supplies the GUI. For what it's worth, I'll bet you can get it to work using a driver for another printer made by the same manufacturer on the client machine, if you can be bothered. Try the manufacturers website. They often have step-by-step instructions for this sort of thing.

I'm assuming you are the same AC Even if Linus were to do that and even Richard Stallman says one can do such things he'd have to get the agreement of all the other kernel developers, something I don't think can happen.

Re:Linux is dying Score: 2 by glwtta writes: I thought Tux held all the copyrights to the Linux kernel? Linus could make his own, proprietary implementation, but 2. I don't think the kernel is as dependent upon Linus as it once was, there's plenty of people who knows as much about each specific part of the kernel as Linus does.

What if they decided that they for example didn't like a specific business, and decided to alter the license so that that business was no longer allowed to use MS SQL server? Books under trade secret law Score: 2 by yerricde writes: For now, the PR is that an electronic document is somehow different than a book.

But that is not being argued in court. An electronic document is just like a book. EULAs on documentation, even printed documentation, are extremely commonplace in many industries. See also trade secret law [google.

There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead. Do you develop on GitHub? You can keep using GitHub but automatically sync your GitHub releases to SourceForge quickly and easily with this tool so your projects have a backup location, and take advantage of SourceForge's massive reach.

One wonders if the only reason they release such docs are as props for a court case or something. This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Full Abbreviated Hidden. More Login. Score: 2. Can't some fool like me I hope I'm not volunteering read the document, and then write his own version of the documentation with whatever license he wants?

Certainly I'm allowed to write whatever works I want, especially ones devoted to some obtuse piece of knowledge like this. Score: 5 , Informative.

Regardless of whether what you suggest would or would not be legal, it isn't necessary. As the article points out, the document is obsolete and the methods it describes are not even in use by Microsoft anymore. Parent Share twitter facebook. Score: 3 , Informative. What you suggest is not legal. A derivative work is when I write a sequel to your fiction novel. This is the equivalent of me producing my own phone book, and using Bell's phone book for the info.

That info isn't copyrightable, in and of itself. This has been decided in court the phone book example is real. Yes, but you don't sign a license when you pick up the latest phone book from your porch every year.

There's no EULA, either. The phone book is protected by copyright law and nothing else. MS is making you sign a license. A contract. An agreement. Maybe that last phrase is the easiest to understand - when you sign an agreement you are agreeing to the terms. Nor a contract. Clicking buttons is how you get to things on the web, and implies no real agreement. Now if they had me sign an NDA on real paper first Score: 3 , Interesting.

The phone book analogy is not quite relevant because the information in a phone book is public information, and the information in MS documentation is not, and as I recall, it is the public nature of the data in a phone book that was the reason it could not be Perhaps a tax on amateur lawyers on slashdot would close the WBush budget deficit and help save social security. I think that copyright can presently covers more than simply the representation of an idea as illustrated by the fairly recent court decision to supress a retelling of Gone With the Wind from the point of view of one of the servents in a book titled The Wind Done Gone due to the decendents of the original author's copyright claims over the characters and storyline.

And the GPL couldn't assign away MS's patent or copyright rights anyway, it can't give away what it doesn't own At issue is what happens when someone sells an item that has GPL code embedded in a part of it, possibly without the knowledge that it is there. OT by now Score: 2. I have seen nothing to support your suspicion that he is opposed to the concept [of] money which would be a ridiculous thing to be opposed to as it is merely an abstract of goods and services used to facilitate trade above a primitive barter system.

On what do you base this suspicion of yours? The fact he is a hippie who lives in his office and does not take baths or showers. Viral Licenses Score: 2 , Interesting. MS is using viral licenses to threaten open source developers with law suits. As much as I like and support the Samba team, I think they're going to end up fighting a losing battle here - Microsoft won't give up its stranglehold on any facet of its operating system. And while in the old days, the would have just purchased the entire Samba project, now they have little choice but to try these sneaky strongarm tactics.

A thought: How many snippets of Samba code do you think has found its way into, say, Windows ? Share twitter facebook. Have you read the article. There is no fight at all. The Samba team has simply evaded the confrontation and carried on. Standard maneuver against a slower but heavily armed opponent in any war game. Even if there was a grain of truth in what you are blabbering about the samba team can move to where it came. As a result SAMBA was written in countries which do not have this concept in their laws applied to software.

Samba can go back there again. World is not just US. Most iportantly, Microsoft has tried this before with most of domain related stuff.

They claimed copyright on documentation and issued cease and desist letters to anyone describing how to set policy and other settings from a non-windows machine. These claims were successfully challenged somewhere in EU but forgot where. So all it is some young legal genius that has forgotten that the world is not US and most likely never new that MSFT has already been burned on enforcing a similar cause in the past.

It will get burned again. When Microsoft does something that breaks ineroperability then it is Microsoft that is broken. When people start considering such as running samba on win32, that day is looming closer. And prior to that, it had been verified and heavily marketed, if you remember that SGI servers running Samba achieved better performance than Windows NT servers. Hence it is not impossible that this served to motivate Microsoft to improve their implementation, proving how the benefits of GPL'ed code fosters innovation and betterment.

However, the SMB protocol was not created by Microsoft. If any one entity, corporate or otherwise, is to be credited with the design of this protocol, it is IBM corporation. Not really. Strike one more Microsoft innovation from the list. I do some work on CIFS and there is indeed some samba code in the codebase. Rather than rewite it ourselves, samba code was taken and obfuscated. After all, who's going to find it?

And good luck proving it. Yeah, talk shows just go nuts for geeks talking about coding, it's what the American audience craves. It's like saying "I'm stamping fake DVDs in the basement, but you can't tell cos you signed this agreement. He spread around a bunch of their "secret scriptures" advocating illegal action and they sued him for breach of trade secrets.

They won. Think about it. They wouldn't expose the sockets interface as it is presented in FreeBSD. I'd like to see someone try doing that. Earlier versions were. The real scoop [kuro5hin. Posting as an AC because I don't feel like losing my job Their implimentations of some functionality is portable to Win32 and more efficient than the in-house code we had previously. Okay then: Which building number does not exist on the Microsoft campus? What does v- at the beginning of an email address mean?

What is the name of the asian supermarket near the campus? What is the name of the bank that has the closest affiliation with Microsoft employees?

If you can get any of these right, I might believe you. My current guess would be that, no, you won't be able to.

Still working on that, but I'll hedge a guess: "Bank of America"? First Tech Credit Union. They serve Boeing as well. It is interesting Score: 3 , Insightful.

To think about what kind of a paradox would be arise when complex licenses overlap. I think a valid point was brought up in why not make alternate documentation that wouldn't refer to the original license I would think it would put all the liability on the head of someone who wrote the new docs Personally I wish they could sort it down to plane English and short sentences.

Kinda like the ten commandments for users. But someone has to feed all the starving lawyers I guess Sadly it does come down to how much political pressure and money you can throw at enforcing a license that makes it stand up Hmm -- Samba for win32? Score: 5 , Interesting. Is Samba available for Win32 platforms?

I know this sounds like a strange question, but consider: Microsoft's SMB-based file sharing system is buggy and insecure. Could Samba be used as a drop-in replacement for regular Windows file sharing? So, you turn it off and install Samba instead. It works the same -- you wind up with shared folders that appear on the network -- but the sharing is being handled by Samba instead of the vanilla Win32 file sharing.

Is that possible? Maybe I'm suffering from hallucinations induced by too much Mountain Dew. Your thoughts could be answered with a simple google search. But, a drop in replacement for something that is proprietary to begin with and comes bundled with all windows version sounds kind of ridiculous, doesn't it. Blockquoth the responder:. Just to nitpick-- Mozilla et.

Contents Exit focus mode. Please rate your experience Yes No. Any additional feedback? In this article. To establish a connection between a client and a server using Microsoft SMB Protocol, you must first determine the dialect with the highest level of functionality that both the client and server support.

The security model used in Microsoft SMB Protocol is identical to the one used by other variants of SMB, and consists of two levels of security user and share.