The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)

The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)

[Namjae Jeon]

Hi Folks,

I am planning to develop smb server for Linux kernel.
Before starting on implemntation, want to clear patent related issue
to know if it is legal to develop or not.

When referring to the SAMBA site
(https://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html), I can see that there are
a lot of legal obligations from the past. Like SAMBA, I also am just
referring the Microsoft SPEC, while the implementation is all together different 
due to obvious reasons (in-kernel implementation).
As there is already an in kernel CIFS client, maybe CIFS developers had the same
concern when developing CIFS client for Linux kernel ?
But I'm not sure about the actual violation part.
Maybe, I am wondering two problem.
 1. When referring the Microsoft patent list, CIFS(SMB) and SMB2.0,
    Microsoft have raised patent applications but this overall seems to be
    about the implementation part. So, any implementation done on linux
    with SMB specifications in mind and not following the approach of Microsoft
    should not infringe any patents ?
 2. While Samba have shifted to the GPLv3 with their newer version, but
    I intend to make GPLv2.0 SMB server in kernel.
    So implementation for this should not cause any license issues ?

Can you please help us in clearing the doubts ?

Thanks.

Re: The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)

[Simo]

On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:24 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I am planning to develop smb server for Linux kernel.
> Before starting on implemntation, want to clear patent related issue
> to know if it is legal to develop or not.

I have no idea about legal implications, and you'll get no answers here
for sure. Ask a lawyer. We can probably suggest a lawyer to consult with
if your lawyer needs help.

That said, an in kernel smb server is not really a bright idea, I would
think hard before going there, Solaris tried, went nowhere quickly.

Even if you get the SMB part of the protocols in kernel, you'll need so
many userspace helpers it is not even funny.
Better time would be spent analyzing what features in the kernel would
make Samba faster and use Samba.

Simo.

> When referring to the SAMBA site
> (https://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html), I can see that there are
> a lot of legal obligations from the past. Like SAMBA, I also am just
> referring the Microsoft SPEC, while the implementation is all together different 
> due to obvious reasons (in-kernel implementation).
> As there is already an in kernel CIFS client, maybe CIFS developers had the same
> concern when developing CIFS client for Linux kernel ?
> But I'm not sure about the actual violation part.
> Maybe, I am wondering two problem.
>  1. When referring the Microsoft patent list, CIFS(SMB) and SMB2.0,
>     Microsoft have raised patent applications but this overall seems to be
>     about the implementation part. So, any implementation done on linux
>     with SMB specifications in mind and not following the approach of Microsoft
>     should not infringe any patents ?
>  2. While Samba have shifted to the GPLv3 with their newer version, but
>     I intend to make GPLv2.0 SMB server in kernel.
>     So implementation for this should not cause any license issues ?
> 
> Can you please help us in clearing the doubts ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


-- 
Simo Sorce

Aw: Re: The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)

[support]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3281 bytes --]


> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Januar 2015 um 15:07 Uhr
> Von: Simo <simo@samba.org>
> An: "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
> Cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org
> Betreff: Re: The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)
>
> On Wed, 2015-01-28 at 11:24 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > I am planning to develop smb server for Linux kernel.
> > Before starting on implemntation, want to clear patent related issue
> > to know if it is legal to develop or not.
> 

legal : maybe - without sign patent licenses agreements : allmost not.

> I have no idea about legal implications, and you'll get no answers here
> for sure. Ask a lawyer. We can probably suggest a lawyer to consult with
> if your lawyer needs help.
> 

- M$ owns most of the smb Protokoll patents as they developed them..

- SUN/oracle and its today owner have an Comercial KERNEL based smb server implementaion 
with solaris 10 and own a LOT of patents on that.

- humingbird , novel and other Imprementations owns some smb suff as well..


> That said, an in kernel smb server is not really a bright idea, I would
> think hard before going there, Solaris tried, went nowhere quickly.
> 
> Even if you get the SMB part of the protocols in kernel, you'll need so
> many userspace helpers it is not even funny.
> Better time would be spent analyzing what features in the kernel would
> make Samba faster and use Samba.
> 
> Simo.
> 
> > When referring to the SAMBA site
> > (https://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_history.html), I can see that there are
> > a lot of legal obligations from the past. Like SAMBA, I also am just
> > referring the Microsoft SPEC, while the implementation is all together different 
> > due to obvious reasons (in-kernel implementation).


> > As there is already an in kernel CIFS client, maybe CIFS developers had the same
> > concern when developing CIFS client for Linux kernel ?

CIFS is m$ in clear words SMB protocoll based.
Therefore fall under the M$ license rules .

the Cifs client are an orign reverse engeneered software...

> > But I'm not sure about the actual violation part.
> > Maybe, I am wondering two problem.
> >  1. When referring the Microsoft patent list, CIFS(SMB) and SMB2.0,
> >     Microsoft have raised patent applications but this overall seems to be
> >     about the implementation part. So, any implementation done on linux
> >     with SMB specifications in mind and not following the approach of Microsoft
> >     should not infringe any patents ?

ask an very excelent patent laywer not samba-list 
and get probably in Touch with samsung´s laywers :)

> >  2. While Samba have shifted to the GPLv3 with their newer version, but
> >     I intend to make GPLv2.0 SMB server in kernel.
> >     So implementation for this should not cause any license issues ?
> > 
> > Can you please help us in clearing the doubts ?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> Simo Sorce
> 
> 

regards

[-- Attachment #2: addressbook.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 929 bytes --]

BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:Venzke;Horst;;MR;;
FN:Horst  Venzke
ORG:Remsnet Consulting & Internet Services LTD
TITLE:IT Freelancer
TEL;PREF;WORK;VOICE:+49211310548830
TEL;HOME;VOICE:+49211310548830
TEL;PREF;HOME;CELL:+491578-4593592
TEL;WORK;FAX:+49211310548830
TEL;HOME;FAX:+49211310548839
ADR;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;Rather Str. 14;D=C3=BCsseldorf;;40476;Germany
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Rather Str. 14=0D=0A40476 D=C3=BCsseldorf=0D=0AGermany
ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;Rather Str 14;D=C3=BCsseldorf;;40476;Germany
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:Rather Str 14=0D=0A40476 D=C3=BCsseldorf=0D=0AGermany
BDAY:19660131
EMAIL;HOME;INTERNET:rnsklaus@web.de
EMAIL;WORK;INTERNET:info@remsnet.de
EMAIL;WORK;INTERNET:Horst.Venzke@remsnet.de
URL;PREF;HOME:www.remsnet.de
URL;WORK:www.remsnet.ws
URL;WORK:www.remsnet.org
URL;WORK:www.remsnet.tv
URL;WORK:www.remsnet.de
URL;WORK:www.remsnet.info
END:VCARD

Re: Re: The patents and license issue from microsoft regarding SMB implementation(GPL)

[Jeremy Allison]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 08:36:04PM +0100, support@remsnet.de wrote:
> 
> legal : maybe - without sign patent licenses agreements : allmost not.
> ...
> - M$ owns most of the smb Protokoll patents as they developed them..
> ...
> CIFS is m$ in clear words SMB protocoll based.
> Therefore fall under the M$ license rules .

In case anyone is worrying, the above is just wrong.

See here:

https://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/

and here:

https://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.html

for details.

Jeremy.